By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
http://www.stevelarkins.freeuk.com/honda_civic_review.htm
Having said that, I do use periodically (50,000 miles)Chevron Techron, as sort of an "Italian Tune Up".
the 2.2 isn't turboed in the civic right?
The guys at car talk also mention using regular gas in high compression engined cars, like the Si, and just letting the knock sensor adjust ignition to compensate for the lower octane? I wonder if that's really a safe way to get the benefits of cheaper gas in an Si? ("safer" as in safe for the longevity of the engine).
Klick and Klack are funny but don't always give the best advice. Running Regular fuel in a Civic Si is a "Fools Economy". Why? By letting the ignition system retard the timing so that the engine won't self-destruct on Regular fuel, your fuel mileage will go down to such an extent that it would have been cheaper to burn Premium fuel.
Best Regards,
Shipo
By your (quote) last response, it would seem the answer did not really address your concerns. It would be highly unlikely a brand new engine, (such as yours) would need cleaning.
In so far as a so-called "mileage booster", you are paying FAR more for the so-called (additive) "mileage booster than you would for a gal more of fuel.
How much more? Examples: Chevron Techron, 16 oz @ 2.50-5.00. At 3.15 per gal unleaded premium, the same money will buy .79-1.59 gals. To carry that out, @38 mpg that would add 30-60 miles more!!! How many more mpg truly can 16 oz of additive add!!?? So even if the additives have the same (BTU) energy as unleaded regular, (it does NOT) the most you can get is 4.75 mpg (for the same monies)!!!
So you are MUCH better off buying the fuel until those intervals (50,000-100,000 miles) where you might determine the engine would most likely benefit from so called cleaning.
Since I do not tear down the engine/s to really see if it REALLY needs the cleaning additive, and take it apart again, (after it runs the additive) to see if it really got cleaned; additive use defaults to a more of a "feel good" preventative measure. I might add, with very questionable results
FWIW, I DO pull engines down and have a look-see every now and again. My most recent example was a 1998 3.8 liter V6 engine from a Dodge Grand Caravan, and you know what I found? To make a long story short, I didn't find even a spec of dirt, varnish or other crud in the portion of the intake system that sees a mixture of both air and fuel.
Look at it this way; from the moment the intake air passes through the air filter, it needs to travel about 18" before it reaches the throttle butterfly. From there both the PVC and the EGR systems dump their nasty exhaust fumes and blow-by gasses into the intake plenum. Once the (now polluted) air has made it past those obstacles, it oozes along the intake plenum (gunking and varnishing as it goes) and into the intake manifold (maybe a little over a foot in distance) where it (finally) enters the fuel injection spray zone, which is literally not even two inches before the intake valve. It is within this zone that the additives in the fuel (those put there by the distiller and those added by the driver) do their job of cleaning the intake system, all one inch or two of it.
So, back to the engine that I just tore down, within the spray zone, the intake manifold was completely spotless and glittering in even low light. What's interesting here is that I've simply used name-brand gasoline in this van for its entire life, all 145,000 miles of it. So, if the intake manifold is so pristine, why on Earth would I want to add any "fuel system cleaners"?
As a point of reference, just above the fuel spray zone, and all of the way back up to the throttle body, the entire intake system was caked with a coat of varnish that was probably about 1/64" in thickness, and while it was soft enough to allow me to nick it with my thumb-nail (barely), it was VERY resistant to cleaning. So what did I do with it when I reassembled the engine? Not a damn thing. ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
Also since we are on a Honda specific thread, Honda's notoriously run VERY clean on the outside, (emissions) and specifically on the inside.
So while individual circumstances do in fact vary. I am at total comfort running 20,000 mile OCI's (with a filter change at that interval also) with Mobil One 0w20 (5w20 also). The Civic gets 38-42 (been hitting a couple of 43 mpg tank fulls (10-11 gal fills), during an everday plain jane commute. (27 miles each way) It is at app 50,000 miles and I have yet to run Chevron Techron, and indeed do not have a 4 pk stocked.
Best Regards,
Shipo
im going to have to try it in my girl friends civic, see how it does. and yea, i was only saying what the product claims to do about cleaning the engine. I NEVER said i was buying it to clean my basically brand new engine....... they also claim that you dont need to buy premium gas when using the additive, but i decided not to add that in since im sure id get more scrutiny just for saying what the product claims(and i sure as hell dont put regular in my car.. or arco).. lol :P
by the way ruking you totally mis understood what i was saying.. i have no concerns with my car or anything, i was merely talking about the product i tried, and maybe suggesting it to someone else to try there results, especially if they have a higher mileage car...
but anyway,
To anyone ELSE, if you got higher mileage and just want to TRY it and compare results, id be interested. its called lucas i believe. its just a additive you put in the gas, claims to give better gas mileage, clean cylinders and injectors. I havent finished this tank yet, so ill see how i do in the end. i was always against putting additives in the gas tank, but i heard this was the only one that worked from the people that worked at schucks and a couple technicians from my honda dealership.
The simple truth is that buying fuel additives (beyond those already in your fuel) is a waste of money and if anything will REDUCE your mileage. If someone wants to claim otherwise, then they're going to have to offer FAAAR more scientific proof than the mileage from a lousy couple of tanks of gas. :P
Best Regards,
Shipo
anyway, im not saying it is or isnt the better way to go.. obviously im not going to put a bottle of this in everytime i fill my tank up. and especially dont buy it if your paying more than 3 dollars a bottle.. it was on sale here for 3.00
like i said before, im asking if someone is willing to try it in there car that has higher mileage, preferably a regualr civic to share there results with me. majority of people dont think they work at all, so dont bother just posting to say it wont work. also remember i said that i dont think any of em work except maybe this kind.. anyway.. peace out. (somehow im guessing no ones going to try it, all well) this doesnt seem like a big deal to me, but i guess others...
Judging by the silence, I think you are the most likely candidate.
The sad truth of this type of thing is that so many times folks want to prove to themselves that they spent their hard earned money on something that's going to give them a return on that money. As such they unconsciously drive easier and magically get better mileage. In reality, if they had been honest with themselves, they would have simply driven just as easily with their untreated fuel and gotten as good as if not better mileage. Like it or not, there's even a name for this, it's called the "Placebo effect". It's well known and well documented, in fact, it's even well documented right here in Edmunds. Check around if you don't believe me.
Here's a few links if you're interested:
http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html
imidazol97, "Toyota Camry Real World MPG Numbers" #269, 15 Jul 2006 7:28 am
http://www.mlm.com/mlm/user/viewthread?thread=9728
Best Regards,
Shipo
Absolutely, positively no chance of that. Even if you drove for one hundred tanks of gas you still wouldn't prove a single thing. Until you prove in either a lab or say with a number of identical cars on a closed course with electronically governed speeds, you have no proof, much less any compelling evidence.
"he sad truth of this type of thing is that so many times folks want to prove to themselves that they spent their hard earned money on something that's going to give them a return on that money. As such they unconsciously drive easier and magically get better mileage"
lolol, thats not at all what i was thinking. first of all, i didnt even buy my car for fuel efficiency, that was a bonus. i didnt buy this fricken additive thinking i was going to get better gas mileage.. i didnt think it was going to work at all. second of all ive been hammering it a bunch in the city, flooring it like any other gas tank..lol just boggles my mind "trying to make myself think it works cause i spent my hard earned cash on it" lolol, yea damn... im so mad i spent that 3 dollars on this bottle..... lolol anyway, what ever. im done talking about this. frankly i dont give a flying [non-permissible content removed].. all i said was i tried it not thinkin it would work, i just happen to ask about it when i was buyin my new air filter, i noticed a difference, decided to ask if someone else would try it see what they think..
anyway, i guess thats too much to ask. SO FORGET IT... lol my lord...
It's comments like that that make me really wonder of you do in fact have a horse in this race. Go check over on the "Fuel and Oil Additives" topic and see how many shills have made almost identical comments to that one.
FWIW, I've had the same very repeatable commute for the last two years, 50 miles each way (47 on the Interstate, on cruise control); reverse commuting, light traffic, two traffic lights to the office, one on the return. During that time I've tracked my mileage tank by tank which works out to some 50,000 miles. The fuel economy for my worst tank was 19.4 mpg and 25.9 mpg was my best, while my running average over that time was 21.485 mpg. So, what caused the 19.4? No clue other than that it was below zero outside. What caused the 25.9? Equally no clue other than it was over ninety outside. What does it mean for my fuel economy? It gets better in the summer. Earth shaking.
"i just happen to ask about it when i was buyin my new air filter, i noticed a difference, decided to ask if someone else would try it see what they think.."
I surely hope you're kidding as there's no way you'd notice a difference with a new air filter unless it was REALLY clogged, and even then most likely only at wide open throttle.
Best Regards,
Shipo
lol, so i obviously know your not going to, i know what you think about it, so theres no more point in going on and on about it. a simple disagreement woulda been sufficient if even needed in the beginning
..."I surely hope you're kidding as there's no way you'd notice a difference with a new air filter unless it was REALLY clogged, and even then most likely only at wide open throttle. "...
Actually, this might not play too well on Honda threads for a lot of Honda owners have spent some serious money on so called cold air intakes. To cut to the chase, for my .02 cents an almost total waste of money time and resources. Not a real concern to me if it is a bling bling kind of thing as the oem designs are functional and usually butt ugly. But in terms of filtering ability, not many filters come even close to matching the OEM filtering ability.
The real issue is almost any car needs to pass a snow prophylactic test. Some oem designs CAN restrict air flow. The easiest and cheapest is to remove the snow prophylactic portion, (if you are comfortable without it, and knowing in the worst case it can hydro lock your engine) and still run the oem filter.
Anyway, I was curious what mileage people have gotten in the new civic hybrids? how much better is it actually than the regular civics? I have a friend who is looking at getting either regular civic or the hybrid.
Since I needed a commute vehicle back in 2004, the 7,000 premium of the hybrid was a BIG factor. Even at a hybrid's 48 mpg vs Civic gassers 38-42 mpg, 7,000 dollars buys a HUGE amount of commute fuel!
So at 3.11 per gal (chose your local prices obviously) 7,000 buys 2,250 gals x 38-43 mpg, the mileage range is 85,500-96,750 miles. That is 6-6.75 years of my commute mileage.
I will leave it to those that care, what the break even point will be between a hybrids 48 mpg and a gassers range of 38-43 mpg is.
Themistocles has been talking about Si Upgrades and Performance Mods and maybe some of this conversation might move to that discussion.
For me, the issue now focuses on the mpg for the second 50,000 mile(s) leg! My swag: it will be pretty similar.
As an off topic comparison diesel, (VW Jetta TDI) the second 50,000 miles (fuel mileage) seemed slightly better than the first, sans the so called "break in" and subsequent "break in" oil changes" and much longer OCI intervals. I am looking forward to the third 50,000 miles.
I put the cruise control on about 62, and then drive straight to work on a major interstate with no lights. For my first 3 tanks, my mileage has been:
38 mpg
46.6 mpg
42.7 mpg
I fill the tank until the gas dispenser stops, and then reset the odomenter, and then calculate the mileage at the next fill up. Funny thing though, I thought the tank on this model was 11.9, but when the needle is in the red zone of E, I fill up and only ever get 8.5 gallons into the tank.
Very happy with new used Civic, and the great gas mileage.
Dave
From Lincoln, NE to North Platte, NE, it was 225.6 miles. I filled up again in North Platte, where I put in 6.554 gallons of Premium (91) at $3.34 / gallon. That's 34.42 mpg.
I then filled up again a little south of Denver, CO...between Denver and Castle Rock. From North Platte to that gas station was 260.8 miles. I put 7.887 gallons. That's 33.06 mpg.
Speed limit was 75 mph. I had the cruise set at 79 mph. RPMs were right at 3.4k at that speed. I'm sure if I backed down to 71 or so, I could add another mpg or so. But, I think that's pretty good in that car.
Once I got past Denver/Colorado Springs and got into the mountains, I stopped keeping track.
Mileage on the car when I left Lincoln was about 2300. Still on my 2nd oil change. Going to change it when I reach 3750 and switch to Mobil 1 synthetic.
I used up 13.615 liters for 204.1 kilometer = 126.821 mile The fuel consumption works out to
6.67 liters/100 km = 42.350965 miles/gallon(UK)
6.67 liters/100 km = 35.2645552 miles/gallon(US)
What is everyone else getting?
http://www.scangauge.com/
Best Regards,
Shipo