Thanks for the link. Looks like they sell products that cover most all makes, but oriented more to dealers and shops.
Some interest has been shown for a ScanGuage interface to a laptop but probably won't happen. It can be quite distracting to try to read the gauges while accelerating in traffic and sure can't be safe.
I can reset the "current trip" each time and run thru a fixed 1 mile course under different acceleration and get a fairly good estimate of what the scangauge reads. Gal used with only 0.1 resolution would be so low as to be meaningless, but the mpg may be useful.
I have no doubt that in general the slower uphill the better, not sure but I suspect using engine load as an indicator may be the best way to decide which gear and rpm is best. That seems to be sorta similar to the optimun acceleration question.
All pretty much a moot point anyway in high traffic areas. Most drivers are going to get irate at anyone trying to squeeze out a few more mpg.
the aggressive mode that vtec goes into is not as aggressive as you think. More aggressive than the economy cams? yeah. Aggressive in the same sense as a performance k series engine? no not at all.
guys, accelerating hard on any car makes your mileage drop, but don't put the blame on vtec; activating the higher rpm aggresive lobes isn't making your mileage drop into hell itself.
I used to floor it in my civic, with only slight penalties to mileage. And since i owned my civic when my wife and i were dating long distance, i had plenty of high speed (75-90) cruises that still resulted in about 36-38 mpg.
Played with this some and to my surprise I didn't see any significant change in mileage, no matter how I got up to speed. Probably making some stupid error but I'll quit paying any attention to how fast or slow I get to hwy speed.
For the 1 mile test, mileage read from 29.4 to 31.0 with a water temp rise from 180 deg to 193. Engine load went to 99 (max) after shifting to 5'th gear, mostly because of a slight upwards grade I guess. Mileage didn't seem to change if I stayed in 4'th to 55 or loaded the engine somewhat in 5'th getting to 55. Also I'm not sure I trust the ScsnGauge for this type evaluation.
Maybe a flat stretch of hwy and run to the red line would show more difference? Shifting at 2500 or 4000 didn't seem to make much difference.
I don't think pushing the Civic a little on interstate on ramps and such is going to drop mileage much, if any. Continual acceleration and standing on the break cycles is a whole different deal.
Glad you took the time and scan gauge to verify what I and others have said! :)This is the real reason why I try to state things in such a way as to be repeatable by ANYONE. We can get fairly arcane as to the why's/wherefor's, etc., but there is a contingent who would totally glaze over and there is another contingent who believe I lie about the mpg issues anyway.
I really do nothing special and I swag that is the real issue. We just go the miles, fill the tank, to first click off and do the math. I have even offered to drive whose evers' car/s in the same environment, and report! Predictably, no takers!! We do however drive within the parameters of whatever we are driving; in this threads' case the Civic. Got to love these economy cars!
"the aggressive mode that vtec goes into is not as aggressive as you think. More aggressive than the economy cams? yeah. Aggressive in the same sense as a performance k series engine? no not at all"
We are considering the "Civic" engines, that the dealer will have in his lot and the general public would purchase.
When a given combination of RPM, Oil Pressure, and throttle setting are combined to some predetermined criteria, the VTEC engine will be operating either with the valves opening less for more economical low rpm driving, or opening more for more aggressive high RPM driving.
It makes no difference if the "Aggressive" stage is an engine that produces 300 hp or 140 HP. The principle of operation is the same!
For all I know the "Aggressive" cam lobe may even have a different duration configuration. But for the sake of this discussion, it makes no difference.
However, it would probably make a difference to the "Pocket Rocket" builder! The cam profiles may be one of the differences between the Lowest powered Civic and the highest powered one!
When a given combination of RPM, Oil Pressure, and throttle setting are combined to some predetermined criteria, the VTEC engine will be operating either with the valves opening less for more economical low rpm driving, or opening more for more aggressive high RPM driving.
It makes no difference if the "Aggressive" stage is an engine that produces 300 hp or 140 HP. The principle of operation is the same!
true, but as its been posted here, it makes no significant difference in milage. Especially since the vtec application on the r18 is to enhance performance for an engine in this size...but not to enhance it to BE a perormance oriented engine.
The vtec applications are different on hondas performance engines and economy engines. Remember the civic hx? less hp than the ex, but it still used vtec and it got even better mileage.
That 'difference' between the two is that on the ivtec used on performance honda engines, the timing is varied on the intake and exhaust valves, not just on the intake like it is on the new civics engine.
Hi, I bought Honda Civic Ex 2007 Auto last month. Right now there are around 2200 miles on the card. Initially for first 3 weeks I got around 31.5MPG in mix driving and 38MPG on Highway. Now from last week I started getting around 27 MPG in mix city/Highway driving. I am driving on the same road/freeway from Home to work. On freeway also I found that now I am getting around 35MPG... MPG is suppose to increase as you break in the car right... do any one know why this may be happening?
Maybe you are now driving faster on the freeway and more aggressively during the city miles? I was quite a bit more careful the first couple thousand on the new engine, old habit of mine. Particularly I noticed a significant drop in mileage running 75 and 80 on interstates compared to 65 and 70.
Got about 34 mpg on my first tank. I'd estimate 30/70 (city/highway) and somewhat conservative driving style to boost the mpg. I'm hoping for upper 30s with more break in and mainly highway driving. I did a lot of research on this car and was a little worried about the variety of mpg's being reported, but I'm happy so far.
My second tank of gas on my '07 Civic LX, Auto got me only 25mpg. This is with 100% city driving, plus I live in a hilly area. My first tank just gave me 22. I am a bit worried. I was expecting around 28mpg with city driving. What can I do to improve my mpg?
Well, I don't think you can do too much, except trade in for a hybrid. If I understand hybrids correctly, they really excel the most in heavy city driving. 25mpg is pretty darn good for all city driving in a non hybrid car.
On the few tanks I've gone through that were all or nearly all stop'n'go city driving, the best I got was about 24-25mpg (seen as low as 22mpg one tankful though). Unfortunately, there are a lot of very slow (and non-automatic) traffic lights around here, so I experience a lot of idling around town - really shoots down the mileage just sitting at intersections going nowhere.
The best mileage I've had in 6 months of ownership was 41mpg - a 300+ mile highway cruise (interstate 64 mostly, cruise control at 70mph most of the way).
Thought I'd drop on by and give my minor up date. I purchased a 2007 Civic Coupe Auto in mid February. I don't drive a whole lot when it's warm as I'm very fond of my motorcycles. However I have done two very long drives, St.Louis to South Padre Island which is 1,200 plus miles each way. I have not seen 30/40 for City/Highway but I have been damn close in the 9,000 miles I've driven I'd say without considering a bit of spirited driving style I get about 27/38 and in true Honda form she's been flawless :shades:
I bought my 07 EX coupe in May/June, I was getting 33 mpg city and 38 highway (75 mph). I had a ram air system (K&N)installed and a performance exhaust (magnaflow). Now (after my more aggressive driving style wore off) im getting 36 city and 40 highway. Not a great improvement but partially justifies the expense. The improved response/power is a welcome bonus.
Nothing special done to affect fuel mileage. Just filled up this (Sat) morning after a weeks' commute. We got 44 mpg! (actually 44.025157) Since the air pump was not busy, I took the opportunity to put app 5#'s of air to get the T/P back up to the 35 psi, I normally like to run in this vehicle. I was a bit annoyed to note (in the records) these tires had not been filled for app 7 months!!
Longer term, I am also half way through my normal oil change interval of 20,000 miles.
Why does the EPA list the manual at 34 mph and the auto at 36 mph. Most of the time a manual is rated with a higher mph. In real world terms, is the auto really better that the manual?
While I have no numbers to prove it, I have been following the various posts of 8th generation Civic drivers for nearly a year now and it seems that the cars with a stick shift do still manage slightly higher mileage numbers. That said, apparently the new Honda automatic in the Civic is good enough to erase much of the difference, hence the EPA numbers.
The bottom line is based on dyno testing the automatic/manual has (respectively) parasitic loses of app 20-22%/ 10-15%. These differences convert to (among a host of other things) LESS/MORE mpg. Within those structural considerations, oems of course can tweaked a myriad of engine/drivetrain variables.
My take is the Honda engine/drive train combinations are matched engineered better than most products on the market in regard to lesser differences between auto/manual, and better overall real world mpg.
Easy markers for the consumer would be automatics going from 4 speeds to 5/6 speeds; for the manual going from 4 speeds to 5/6 speeds-to double overdrives.
My take on a 2004 Civic 4 speed automatic, for so called better mpg, let the automatic do the selecting of the gear/s despite a ponderous searching for the correct gear/s feeling/confusion.
I have reported 38-42 mpg on a daily purposeful commute. Since I do not have a HONDA stick shift I would swag a manual between 1-3 mpg better than the automatic.
A TDI 2003 Jetta 5 speed manual does 48-52 mpg in that EXACT same commute.
2007 Coupe, 9,600 miles, 1st air filter change, really dirty.
Just took a trip from Mobile, Al to Clarksville, Tn
Trip up, AC on, 68 MPH, 506 miles = 41+ mpg (4 clicks left on gas gauge) Trip back, no AC, 70 MPH, 495 miles = 41+ mpg (4 clicks left on gas gauge)
Yes!!
Will look into cleanable filter, noticed a good increase in mileage, funny, the day after the filter was changed, on the trip up, heard how a clean filter can add 10% to the MPG, I beleive it!
You may want to check the oem web site and/or shop manual or other technical data for the recommended air filter mileage. The 2004 Civic has a recommended interval of 30,000 miles. Much below that is not only unnecessary, as the oem filter (with a few more miles of filtering) actually filters better than a brand new air filter. This is not even to mention 3x greater cost (in view of a 10,000 mile air filter change) Certainly the oem filter filters better than oiled cotton media. As for the so called clean able filters, the real tests are longitudinal UOA's. MSG # 1251 are my latest mpg figures, and in addtion to the notes are on an oem factory provided air filter with 51,000 miles. It will be changed at 60,000 miles.
All the best for continued to even better fuel mileage!
For sure, there is nothing "wrong" with changing it. However the time honored "look" at things is really not a TECHNICALLY good indicator. So for example, I know when I "look" at the (my) air filter @ the 60,000 miles mark, it will be "dirty", just as yours will be (predictably) at 15,000 miles. Another example is changing the oil because it is "discolored." Color is NOT a good indicator. Respectively, "good" indicators are: 1. air (filter) flow indicator, 2. UOA's, (trend indicators).
Indeed the very act of "looking" at it can disrupt a perfectly good seal, causing SI (silicon) DIRT to enter the intake. Since the majority of folks do not run UOA's they do not really SEE the potential or the potentially induced "problems". So if one does not use any of the two indicators the best is install the air filter, (leave it alone) do NOT check it till the recommended change time and then change it.
Another example, HONDA oem recommends on a Civic (2004) a 20,000 mile oil FILTER change!!!. Most dealers and DIYer's recommend and do 5,000 regular and 2,500 severe OCI's. This seemingly small detail (and cost) exponentially skyrockets the maintenance costs (4x to 8 times) higher than the actual oem recommendation!!??
I've been noticing that manuals have lower geared rear ends, so at cruising speed in high gear the rpms are higher in a manual.
Perhaps it is to make a manual more 'spirited' for the sport enthusiast.
You are right in the first regard; an Automatic Civic (my dad's 2007 EX is where I learned it's RPMs) will cruise at or slightly below 2,000 RPM at 60 MPH. The manual, I have heard, runs above 2,500 RPM at 60 MPH. The Accords have similar RPMs for their respective transmissions, despite the Accord having a much torquier engine.
This may have a lot to do with the fact that Honda feels people cruising the highway don't want to have to deal with downshifting much on the highway. To engage the clutch will disengage the cruise control. In an automatic, the car does the work for you, so there is no problem with the cruise control being cancelled.
I think because we do not have a lot of comparisons, a lot of things remain hidden in plain sight.
For example, a 2003 Jetta TDI 5 speed manual US market. The EPA ratings 42/49. The reality in a everyday commute is 48-52 mpg. On the range I have gotten as low as 44 to as high as 62 mpg. On a recent 2000 mile trip the mpg overall was 52 mpg. Fuel in Canada is at $4. per gal (US price and 128 oz per gal), so I chose to fuel in the US (OR actually @2.79-2.99 per gal) when the fuel lamp/buzzer came on at app 600-625 miles with a 14.5 capacity.
The upshot is while this kind of fuel mpg is considered very good, the European version has a 6 speed manual, bigger injectors and can get app 2 mpg MORE throughout a similar operating range, with more power and torque (10-25hp and 40# ft of torque)! As most gasser enthusiasts know, to get 10/25 hp and 40# ft of torque more costs a pretty penny.
One real key is the better mpg. But then you knew that. I have already mentioned the mpg for both, the commonality being the drivers. I am not sure why you would remove a turbo!? The action/s you recommend are short sighted. Utilizing already produced exhaust (wasted) gases to produce more hp and torque with less fuel is almost a no brainer with no additional combustible emissions of its own. Indeed the hp for the Civic is HIGHER the TDI, AND the torque is LOWER. At altitude, the Honda loses a lot of capability and further fuel mileage vs the TDI. Each is also a stand alone product: meaning just because VW uses a turbo, does not mean Honda CAN'T?!!
Indeed Honda is coming out with a iCTDI (turbo) product in the not too distant future.
Being as how Civic is app 450#'s lighter than the Jetta, there are no real reasons why a well designed Honda should not get even better mpg; despite the fact that European iCTDI Civics do get less than the Jetta, Golf, Beetle, Skoda (VW engine and drivetrain). Indeed if the Jetta was 450#'s lighter, I would swag app 3-4 mpg better for more like 51-55 mpg min under the same conditions.
So if you have no problems getting 38-42 mpg when 48-52 mpg will do; or was that getting 48-52 mpg when 38-42 will do, I have no problems; either way! :shades:
..they add to the base cost of the unit. The increased mileage often (but not always) pays for the added base cost. It is purely an econmoic choice that each has to make.
BTW, railroads often remove the turbochargers since they add so much maintenance costs on older units. Granted these are multi-million mile units that have been moved to lower-demand jobs, but the cost to maintain a turbo even in a car is not to be overlooked, even after you consider the added up-front costs as well.
What in my post led you to believe I overlook or overlooked the potential for turbocharger replacement??
Comparing railroad locomotives to Honda Civics is a tad off topic isn't it? I am sure the turbo unit weighs close to if not more than the Honda Civic!?
Why not compare tractor trailer rigs to Honda Civics, of which almost ALL tractors use turbos.
Indeed right now the cost at 100,000 miles is LESS for the Jetta than the Civic. Even this is an unfair comparison as the Civic has 52,000 miles. Neither has had unscheduled maintenance. Wear on consumable items on the Civic is much more than the Jetta at comparable miles (50,000 miles). The fuel used (cost) is definitely LESS!
you are obviously a bit clueless here...the COST OF THE TURBO offsets the fuel savings. You PAID for that turbo when you bought the car, it wasn't free.
using your logic (and that would be a stretch), you could spend 100k on a car that got 100mpg and you would say the costs were less.
You got me licked in the clueless department! You go from railroad locomotive sized turbos to car turbos app half the size of a football helmet. Further, it is more than obvious neither car is "free", as if you did/would not pay for the Honda!?
The cost of the comparable gasser (non diesel turbo) Jetta, as I remember was app 500 less. The cost of a turbo gasser was app 246 dollars less. These are far less than your 100,000 dollar examples. Pretty easy to figure the fuel savings at 29 mpg for the gassers and 49/50 mpg over 100,000 miles: if you were less interested in pushing your one ups manship positions!? A better discussion would be the B/E analysis' rather than ridiculous locomotive sized turbo comparisons!?
The math indicates use of 3448 gals vs 2000 gals.(over 100,000 miles) in models with a diesel option. Individual results as other posts in this thread will of course vary. At $3. per gal that is app 4345 dollar savings. So if you are ok with spending 4,345 more per 100,000 miles as per comparison, I believe YOU because it is YOUR "nickel".
We do not know what the price of the diesel option (over/ under the gasser options) in whatever platform/s a Honda turbo diesel will be sold in the US market. I would swag a diesel Honda to be a fuel sippers fuel sipper in like models.
My swag is the Honda diesels in the US markets will be a hit, and probably will have waiting lists. Another swag is the resale values of used Honda diesels will be higher than the already high Honda gasser resale values. Edmunds.com indicates the TDI in a Jetta is up to 4600 dollars higher in resale value than a gasser Jetta. You might want to add up the two "savings" figures and see if that is real money to.... YOU. (8,945)
The goal for the Civic is to keep it for at least 4 timing belt changes, recommended by Honda @ 105,000 miles per. So far at 52,000 miles it runs like the proverbial top. 20,000 mile OCI's are not hard to take either. Got to love these econo cars!
I have to agree with ruking1 here (a rare occurance)the cost of a turbo diesel "anything" will cost more up front. Since there are only two major manufacturers selling diesel in this country...VW (soon to resume) and Mercedes that limits the discussion about initial costs verses fuel savings to a very expensive car and a moderately priced car. So, lets talk about the VW TDi. It has a modest up-front premium for the diesel engine, true, however the fabulous fuel economy "pays back" that premium is a relatively short time. This depending on various factors such as the amount of miles you typically drive per year..cost of fuel compared to gas (always higher in our area). On the other hand diesel requires less routine maintainance even though gas engines these days don't have much anymore either. The old diesel flaws are mostly gone and given the choice of buying a diesel or hybrid I'll always take the diesel. Anyhow, it is common sense that the diesel will cost more up front but payback shouldn't be too awfully long. Every automotive option requires an up-front cost but few..no, make that none, actually pay for themself in the end at resale. Try finding a used VW TDi Jetta or TDi anything and you will find that the up-front cost is more than offset by the used price. This in addition to the 45 mpg or so typical for these.
"the COST OF THE TURBO offsets the fuel savings. You PAID for that turbo when you bought the car, it wasn't free."
I agree!
The Turbo is a real world expense if the diesel is going to perform near the gas models. The extra cost of purchasing the turbo diesel and maintaining it, can add up.
I don't know that the average car buyer/owner would keep a car long enough to break even, much less get ahead.
In our area diesel cost 20 cents more than regular. Current prices are $2.79 and $2.99.
If a diesel with equal performance averages 25% better mileage, and the gasser gets 32 mpg average, the diesel will average 40 mpg.
Over 100K miles the diesel would cost less in fuel by $1,249.
With the "average" vehicle traveling 12K to 15K a year, let's figure a real world average of 13.5k per year. It would take 7.4 years to save that $1,249.
To carry it a little farther the turbo diesel does cost more than a gasser to purchase. Let's go on the low side and say $2K more. That $2k is going to be paid with money taken out of savings or by financing. A bank CD is paying 5% +/- right now.
Taking that money out of savings, or not putting it in, will cost $100 interest the first year. With compounding, that $2000 would have grown to $2,861 in the 7.4 years.
The $1249 saved in fuel, minus the $2861 lost in the higher buying price would equal a extra cost of $1612 for the first 100K miles at 13.5K miles a year to drive the diesel. The diesel cost $1612 more to drive than a gasser, figured on today's approximate prices. Possible tax credits, more or less insurance cost, and more or less maintenance would also have to be figured in.
Of course the numbers can change, either up or down. But going by today's prices the diesel will cost more to drive than a gasser in an automobile for the average consumer.
Your assumption of a diesel costing more is way out of line. Even the Mercedes-Benz E320 only costs $1,000 more than the E350 with the exact same options. When VW last sold the TDI here in the U.S. (for the 2006 model year) the price difference was $1,315 over a strippo 2.5 liter model. That said, the resale value of those same two cars today has a gap that has grown to an astounding $6,000! Like it or not, the gasser has depreciated while the TDI as appreciated, selling used for more than new.
Even the E-Class (which is still available in Diesel) has almost completely maintained the cost premium of the diesel over the gasser. Consider the following:
..."In our area diesel cost 20 cents more than regular. Current prices are $2.79 and $2.99.
If a diesel with equal performance averages 25% better mileage, and the gasser gets 32 mpg average, the diesel will average 40 mpg.
Over 100K miles the diesel would cost less in fuel by $1,249. "...
Since this is a Honda Civic thread, Honda (US market) Civic has neither a turbo gasser or diesel. Further there is a (normal but) HUGE reported mpg difference in range by Civic owners (normally aspirated). Right now, ( US market) Honda Civic(same) model comparisons can NOT be done, as one can with (for example) the Jetta TDI, 1.8T and 2.0 (normally aspirated). So again using real world figures for the VW Jetta TDI vs the 1.8T and 2.0 we are talking 50 mpg vs 29, 29 mpg. So given your 2.99 diesel and 2.79 gas that is .0598 per mile driven, .0962068 respectively, or gas costing app 38% MORE per mile driven. So given 100,000 miles there is a dollar difference of $3,641 more for gasser operation. For the 1.8T, actual recommendation is to use PREMIUM unleaded regular, (higher cost: $2.99) but you might accuse me of further hair splitting. (not) This would put the cost to .1031034 per mile driven.
So I am extremely puzzled as to why folks would down play a 42% savings in fuel consumption!!! This is of course against a backdrop of a min of app $3. gas. In the over all mosaic of things we are of course splitting hairs here for a myriad of reasons. If, and this is a huge big IF, the nation could decrease fuel consumption by 42%, we probably would not have NEAR the ww conflict/s we seem to have! In a lot of respects, a journey usually begins with a single step. I do NOT think you have been off the planet for a while and just returned- Rip Van Winkle est, to a world wide oil crisis, etc, etc. More likely, you might be in the camp of paying lip service to decreased oil consumption and go on ones' merry consumptive way!?
So again, the question remains. Would you rather spend 1,249 (your figures) to 3,641 more?... or less? I am clearly in the LESS camp. If it has no real meaning to you, let me congratulate you!
Again I have given you the real world differences in the Jetta car prices at the time, of 500 (less for the 2.0), 246 over( the 1.8T) in comparison to the diesel model. Also the turbo gasser did cost more than the non turbo gasser)
If you can reference a real world new car price of $2,000 (rather high) difference due to the diesel option alone, please do. Until then, I would agree with Shipo, your swagged prices are not reflective. ("...way out of line...".
So in line with the Honda Civic mpg thread I look forward to Honda's diesel offerings! I think they should be a real hit and be slightly to a little better than VW in the MPG department. I based this on the mpg of the Civic vs the Jetta 2.0 (normally aspirated) and the 1.8T., 38-42 vs 29/29 mpg or app 28% better. If Honda can duplicate a 28% greater fuel economy in their diesel offerings that would put the Civic's mpg north of 51 mpg!! :shades:
If the diesel premium is $500 and if the diesel returns your 42% better mileage figure, you are correct! Those are big Ifs. Time will tell!
With the VW diesel being such a success, why are they not producing it for 07?
BTW: "I do NOT think you have been off the planet for a while and just returned- Rip Van Winkle est, to a world wide oil crisis, etc, etc. More likely, you might be in the camp of paying lip service to decreased oil consumption and go on ones' merry consumptive way!?"
You don't know a thing about me! So Butt Out with the personal attacks. We all have a right to post our opinions concerning cars. Looking back over your posts, you tend to do that with others that have an opinion different from yours.
..."If the diesel premium is $500 and if the diesel returns your 42% better mileage figure, you are correct! Those are big Ifs. Time will tell!"...
Time has already told!!? This is already history. The examples given are for a 2003 TDI,1.8T, 2.0. Given the range of gasser Honda Civic results the only real question would be what one would get with a gasser Honda vs diesel Honda given similar driving conditions as I have reported in say an everyday commute. This is one reason why I would seriously consider a diesel Honda, specifically diesels' Civic, Accord, Pilot! Killer applications for my .02 cents. Will they all happen? Probably not!
..."You don't know a thing about me! So Butt Out with the personal attacks. We all have a right to post our opinions concerning cars. Looking back over your posts, you tend to do that with others that have an opinion different from yours"...
As you know even less about me! Like you, I post ..."our"... my opinions concerning cars- just like you. You might disagree with my conclusions, or even agree: but let the facts play a role in that disagreement, even agreement. Since you have not addressed facts presented in the post that so called "offends", I have no problem with one's expressing opinions and not letting the facts get in the way! Indeed you may "take" offense because the facts do not agree with what you presented or did NOT agree with your expressed opinions. Actually I am fine with it either/or in any matrix of ways! So let it alone! You are being way too defensive, since I did NOT personally attack YOU!
So if you do drive a diesel, you would tend NOT to be in that camp. Again, if you do drive a Civic, as I have noted we are in a sense splitting hairs here as most Civic drivers experience good mpg. So do you drive a diesel? :shades: Since the passenger vehicle fleet is upwards of 97% GASSER, with diesel being less than 3%, one can pretty much take that bet to the bank, now, eh?
So on the diesel, I report rather than SWAG. I drive the Civic (gasser) and again report rather than SWAG. I have as you probably have read, SWAG about Honda Civic diesels/gassers that others drive, since they are not available in the US market nor do I drive or own one; I also depend on other's to report their results.
Hey buddy, you're probably wondering why I'm in THIS forum eh? Well my faithful '00 TDI went to see it's maker a couple weeks back. Square hit in the rear forcing a square hit in the front. Good news is that it saved my bacon wonderfully, bad news is I got a nice check from the insurance company. 60% of what I paid for the car.....7 years/160k miles ago. Not bad! Interesting chat you've got going here.
Well I must first admit that my attraction to the Civic is a bit blah. However I needed something in a hurry, easy to resale, and decent on fuel so I bit the bullet. Dealer had an '07 EX auto to move fast for under invoice and the color got my attention (Tango Red Pearl with Ivory). I figure this will get me by until some more interesting cars come along......new TDI maybe hmmmmm? Civic has to be one of the better choices for holding value in the short term so here I am.
Gas mileage? Well I drove fairly easy on the first tank and got a tad over 35mpg. So it's about 10mpg low from what I averaged with the TDI (but with a manual and performance mods.....).
Performance wise....eh I miss the TDI. 0-60 is quicker with the civic (hold foot to floor requires little intelligence...) but this baby has to shift a lot to keep momentum going. I've got hills the TDI would accelerate up in 5th gear that the Civic is struggling to hold in 3rd. Handling/steering feel isn't even in the ballpark compared the the Jetta, although I admit I had some mods. I also realized the newer Jettas are much bigger and probably just as floaty now. My gen Jetta was more go-kartish.
I can see why these are attractive though. Fit and finish and interior materials beats the pants off my much more expensive Odyssey. Hoping to increase mpg's a little more as it breaks in. Later!
WOW! First off, I am glad there was no (bad) injury/ damage to you and yours!! Farther down the priority list is, 60% of what you paid for the car as an (low BB) insurance settlement. WOW!! In hindsight, it would be interesting to know what you would have gotten on the used car market (before the crash obviously)!!
The bottom line: insurance as well as resale value/sw are very very good for the TDI equipt VW's.
..."....eh I miss the TDI. 0-60 is quicker with the civic (hold foot to floor requires little intelligence...) but this baby has to shift a lot to keep momentum going. I've got hills the TDI would accelerate up in 5th gear that the Civic is struggling to hold in 3rd. Handling/steering feel isn't even in the ballpark compared the the Jetta, although I admit I had some mods. I also realized the newer Jettas are much bigger and probably just as floaty now. My gen Jetta was more go-kartish"...
Performance wise, I share your perceptions!
I have mentioned in other posts the Civic (my) auto tranmission seems to have a consumer perception of being ponderous in "finding itself". For best mpg, it is best not to over ride this... searching procedure. :shades: Let it find itself under each condition. (feels weird to me, but oh well.)
In light of what happened to your TDI, and the markets lack of 2007,2008 TDI models, you did make a great choice in a 07 Civic EX: under invoice! YES! !! All the best!!
Let me know on the TDI threads, when you start to consider the new TDI;s! :shades:
I think I could have gotten in the ballpark of what they paid me. They might be a little high but I think they just wanted that signature as quick as possible. I have seen similar mileage TDI's selling on that other site for less but they sell very fast and are not in as good of shape. The rear damages were fairly extensive, very minor in the front. Radiator wasn't even leaking so realistically they've got a ton of value in it the way it sits from the mechanicals, clean interior, and no blows on the airbags. KBB is $700 under their settlement for private party so not too far off really.
Tiguan has my interest. An AWD that gets 35mpg would be terrific and not require me firing up the V8 truck for crap-weather trekking. Of course VW isn't known for offering a TDI with AWD.......at least not in these United States.
Glad most went as well with the accident as can be expected with that type of thing. Generally insurance companies tend to want us to give them our cars.
Thanks for the comparison of fuel mileage and handling between the MT TDI and the AT Civic. Looks as though the TDI got about 28% better than the Civic, or the Civic gets 22% less than the TDI. Depending on how it is viewed.
It will be interesting to see what Honda comes up with in the way of a diesel, in performance and price. That Civic mileage may get even better as it breaks in. Although 35 mpg seems really a good average for a new engine.
Comments
Some interest has been shown for a ScanGuage interface to a laptop but probably won't happen. It can be quite distracting to try to read the gauges while accelerating in traffic and sure can't be safe.
I can reset the "current trip" each time and run thru a fixed 1 mile course under different acceleration and get a fairly good estimate of what the scangauge reads. Gal used with only 0.1 resolution would be so low as to be meaningless, but the mpg may be useful.
I have no doubt that in general the slower uphill the better, not sure but I suspect using engine load as an indicator may be the best way to decide which gear and rpm is best. That seems to be sorta similar to the optimun acceleration question.
All pretty much a moot point anyway in high traffic areas. Most drivers are going to get irate at anyone trying to squeeze out a few more mpg.
the aggressive mode that vtec goes into is not as aggressive as you think. More aggressive than the economy cams? yeah. Aggressive in the same sense as a performance k series engine? no not at all.
guys, accelerating hard on any car makes your mileage drop, but don't put the blame on vtec; activating the higher rpm aggresive lobes isn't making your mileage drop into hell itself.
I used to floor it in my civic, with only slight penalties to mileage. And since i owned my civic when my wife and i were dating long distance, i had plenty of high speed (75-90) cruises that still resulted in about 36-38 mpg.
Not too shabby.
Yet on the other hand... I selected a slightly lower range (65-85 mph) and got 40.9 mpg. :shades:
For the 1 mile test, mileage read from 29.4 to 31.0 with a water temp rise from 180 deg to 193. Engine load went to 99 (max) after shifting to 5'th gear, mostly because of a slight upwards grade I guess. Mileage didn't seem to change if I stayed in 4'th to 55 or loaded the engine somewhat in 5'th getting to 55. Also I'm not sure I trust the ScsnGauge for this type evaluation.
Maybe a flat stretch of hwy and run to the red line would show more difference? Shifting at 2500 or 4000 didn't seem to make much difference.
I don't think pushing the Civic a little on interstate on ramps and such is going to drop mileage much, if any. Continual acceleration and standing on the break cycles is a whole different deal.
I really do nothing special and I swag that is the real issue. We just go the miles, fill the tank, to first click off and do the math. I have even offered to drive whose evers' car/s in the same environment, and report! Predictably, no takers!! We do however drive within the parameters of whatever we are driving; in this threads' case the Civic. Got to love these economy cars!
We are considering the "Civic" engines, that the dealer will have in his lot and the general public would purchase.
When a given combination of RPM, Oil Pressure, and throttle setting are combined to some predetermined criteria, the VTEC engine will be operating either with the valves opening less for more economical low rpm driving, or opening more for more aggressive high RPM driving.
It makes no difference if the "Aggressive" stage is an engine that produces 300 hp or 140 HP. The principle of operation is the same!
For all I know the "Aggressive" cam lobe may even have a different duration configuration. But for the sake of this discussion, it makes no difference.
However, it would probably make a difference to the "Pocket Rocket" builder! The cam profiles may be one of the differences between the Lowest powered Civic and the highest powered one!
Kip
It makes no difference if the "Aggressive" stage is an engine that produces 300 hp or 140 HP. The principle of operation is the same!
true, but as its been posted here, it makes no significant difference in milage. Especially since the vtec application on the r18 is to enhance performance for an engine in this size...but not to enhance it to BE a perormance oriented engine.
The vtec applications are different on hondas performance engines and economy engines. Remember the civic hx? less hp than the ex, but it still used vtec and it got even better mileage.
That 'difference' between the two is that on the ivtec used on performance honda engines, the timing is varied on the intake and exhaust valves, not just on the intake like it is on the new civics engine.
Is that a typo? :confuse:
Best Regards,
Shipo
Thanks,
Kip
The best mileage I've had in 6 months of ownership was 41mpg - a 300+ mile highway cruise (interstate 64 mostly, cruise control at 70mph most of the way).
Longer term, I am also half way through my normal oil change interval of 20,000 miles.
Got to love these eco/compact cars!
Best Regards,
Shipo
The bottom line is based on dyno testing the automatic/manual has (respectively) parasitic loses of app 20-22%/ 10-15%. These differences convert to (among a host of other things) LESS/MORE mpg. Within those structural considerations, oems of course can tweaked a myriad of engine/drivetrain variables.
My take is the Honda engine/drive train combinations are matched engineered better than most products on the market in regard to lesser differences between auto/manual, and better overall real world mpg.
Easy markers for the consumer would be automatics going from 4 speeds to 5/6 speeds; for the manual going from 4 speeds to 5/6 speeds-to double overdrives.
My take on a 2004 Civic 4 speed automatic, for so called better mpg, let the automatic do the selecting of the gear/s despite a ponderous searching for the correct gear/s feeling/confusion.
I have reported 38-42 mpg on a daily purposeful commute. Since I do not have a HONDA stick shift I would swag a manual between 1-3 mpg better than the automatic.
A TDI 2003 Jetta 5 speed manual does 48-52 mpg in that EXACT same commute.
Perhaps it is to make a manual more 'spirited' for the sport enthusiast.
Just took a trip from Mobile, Al to Clarksville, Tn
Trip up, AC on, 68 MPH, 506 miles = 41+ mpg (4 clicks left on gas gauge)
Trip back, no AC, 70 MPH, 495 miles = 41+ mpg (4 clicks left on gas gauge)
Yes!!
Will look into cleanable filter, noticed a good increase in mileage, funny, the day after the filter was changed, on the trip up, heard how a clean filter can add 10% to the MPG, I beleive it!
Love this car!
All the best for continued to even better fuel mileage!
Kip
Indeed the very act of "looking" at it can disrupt a perfectly good seal, causing SI (silicon) DIRT to enter the intake. Since the majority of folks do not run UOA's they do not really SEE the potential or the potentially induced "problems". So if one does not use any of the two indicators the best is install the air filter, (leave it alone) do NOT check it till the recommended change time and then change it.
Another example, HONDA oem recommends on a Civic (2004) a 20,000 mile oil FILTER change!!!. Most dealers and DIYer's recommend and do 5,000 regular and 2,500 severe OCI's. This seemingly small detail (and cost) exponentially skyrockets the maintenance costs (4x to 8 times) higher than the actual oem recommendation!!??
Perhaps it is to make a manual more 'spirited' for the sport enthusiast.
You are right in the first regard; an Automatic Civic (my dad's 2007 EX is where I learned it's RPMs) will cruise at or slightly below 2,000 RPM at 60 MPH. The manual, I have heard, runs above 2,500 RPM at 60 MPH. The Accords have similar RPMs for their respective transmissions, despite the Accord having a much torquier engine.
This may have a lot to do with the fact that Honda feels people cruising the highway don't want to have to deal with downshifting much on the highway. To engage the clutch will disengage the cruise control. In an automatic, the car does the work for you, so there is no problem with the cruise control being cancelled.
For example, a 2003 Jetta TDI 5 speed manual
US market. The EPA ratings 42/49. The reality in a everyday commute is 48-52 mpg. On the range I have gotten as low as 44 to as high as 62 mpg. On a recent 2000 mile trip the mpg overall was 52 mpg. Fuel in Canada is at $4. per gal (US price and 128 oz per gal), so I chose to fuel in the US (OR actually @2.79-2.99 per gal) when the fuel lamp/buzzer came on at app 600-625 miles with a 14.5 capacity.
The upshot is while this kind of fuel mpg is considered very good, the European version has a 6 speed manual, bigger injectors and can get app 2 mpg MORE throughout a similar operating range, with more power and torque (10-25hp and 40# ft of torque)! As most gasser enthusiasts know, to get 10/25 hp and 40# ft of torque more costs a pretty penny.
But you also have virtually no power.
HIGHER the TDI, AND the torque is LOWER. At altitude, the Honda loses a lot of capability and further fuel mileage vs the TDI. Each is also a stand alone product: meaning just because VW uses a turbo, does not mean Honda CAN'T?!!
Indeed Honda is coming out with a iCTDI (turbo) product in the not too distant future.
Being as how Civic is app 450#'s lighter than the Jetta, there are no real reasons why a well designed Honda should not get even better mpg; despite the fact that European iCTDI Civics do get less than the Jetta, Golf, Beetle, Skoda (VW engine and drivetrain). Indeed if the Jetta was 450#'s lighter, I would swag app 3-4 mpg better for more like 51-55 mpg min under the same conditions.
So if you have no problems getting 38-42 mpg when 48-52 mpg will do; or was that getting 48-52 mpg when 38-42 will do, I have no problems; either way!
BTW, railroads often remove the turbochargers since they add so much maintenance costs on older units. Granted these are multi-million mile units that have been moved to lower-demand jobs, but the cost to maintain a turbo even in a car is not to be overlooked, even after you consider the added up-front costs as well.
Comparing railroad locomotives to Honda Civics is a tad off topic isn't it? I am sure the turbo unit weighs close to if not more than the Honda Civic!?
Why not compare tractor trailer rigs to Honda Civics, of which almost ALL tractors use turbos.
Indeed right now the cost at 100,000 miles is LESS for the Jetta than the Civic. Even this is an unfair comparison as the Civic has 52,000 miles. Neither has had unscheduled maintenance. Wear on consumable items on the Civic is much more than the Jetta at comparable miles (50,000 miles). The fuel used (cost) is definitely LESS!
using your logic (and that would be a stretch), you could spend 100k on a car that got 100mpg and you would say the costs were less.
The cost of the comparable gasser (non diesel turbo) Jetta, as I remember was app 500 less. The cost of a turbo gasser was app 246 dollars less. These are far less than your 100,000 dollar examples. Pretty easy to figure the fuel savings at 29 mpg for the gassers and 49/50 mpg over 100,000 miles: if you were less interested in pushing your one ups manship positions!? A better discussion would be the B/E analysis' rather than ridiculous locomotive sized turbo comparisons!?
The math indicates use of 3448 gals vs 2000 gals.(over 100,000 miles) in models with a diesel option. Individual results as other posts in this thread will of course vary. At $3. per gal that is app 4345 dollar savings. So if you are ok with spending 4,345 more per 100,000 miles as per comparison, I believe YOU because it is YOUR "nickel".
We do not know what the price of the diesel option (over/ under the gasser options) in whatever platform/s a Honda turbo diesel will be sold in the US market. I would swag a diesel Honda to be a fuel sippers fuel sipper in like models.
My swag is the Honda diesels in the US markets will be a hit, and probably will have waiting lists. Another swag is the resale values of used Honda diesels will be higher than the already high Honda gasser resale values. Edmunds.com indicates the TDI in a Jetta is up to 4600 dollars higher in resale value than a gasser Jetta. You might want to add up the two "savings" figures and see if that is real money to.... YOU. (8,945)
The goal for the Civic is to keep it for at least 4 timing belt changes, recommended by Honda @ 105,000 miles per. So far at 52,000 miles it runs like the proverbial top. 20,000 mile OCI's are not hard to take either. Got to love these econo cars!
I agree!
The Turbo is a real world expense if the diesel is going to perform near the gas models. The extra cost of purchasing the turbo diesel and maintaining it, can add up.
I don't know that the average car buyer/owner would keep a car long enough to break even, much less get ahead.
In our area diesel cost 20 cents more than regular. Current prices are $2.79 and $2.99.
If a diesel with equal performance averages 25% better mileage, and the gasser gets 32 mpg average, the diesel will average 40 mpg.
Over 100K miles the diesel would cost less in fuel by $1,249.
With the "average" vehicle traveling 12K to 15K a year, let's figure a real world average of 13.5k per year. It would take 7.4 years to save that $1,249.
To carry it a little farther the turbo diesel does cost more than a gasser to purchase. Let's go on the low side and say $2K more. That $2k is going to be paid with money taken out of savings or by financing. A bank CD is paying 5% +/- right now.
Taking that money out of savings, or not putting it in, will cost $100 interest the first year. With compounding, that $2000 would have grown to $2,861 in the 7.4 years.
The $1249 saved in fuel, minus the $2861 lost in the higher buying price would equal a extra cost of $1612 for the first 100K miles at 13.5K miles a year to drive the diesel. The diesel cost $1612 more to drive than a gasser, figured on today's approximate prices. Possible tax credits, more or less insurance cost, and more or less maintenance would also have to be figured in.
Of course the numbers can change, either up or down. But going by today's prices the diesel will cost more to drive than a gasser in an automobile for the average consumer.
Kip
Even the E-Class (which is still available in Diesel) has almost completely maintained the cost premium of the diesel over the gasser. Consider the following:
Car ----------------- MSRP ----- KBB
2006 E320 ----- $51,050 -- $47,477
2006 E350 ----- $50,050 -- $46,547
So, the Diesel was priced at exactly $1,000 over the gasser when new, and now, today the difference is $950. Not too shabby.
Best Regards,
Shipo
If a diesel with equal performance averages 25% better mileage, and the gasser gets 32 mpg average, the diesel will average 40 mpg.
Over 100K miles the diesel would cost less in fuel by $1,249. "...
Since this is a Honda Civic thread, Honda (US market) Civic has neither a turbo gasser or diesel. Further there is a (normal but) HUGE reported mpg difference in range by Civic owners (normally aspirated). Right now, ( US market) Honda Civic(same) model comparisons can NOT be done, as one can with (for example) the Jetta TDI, 1.8T and 2.0 (normally aspirated). So again using real world figures for the VW Jetta TDI vs the 1.8T and 2.0 we are talking 50 mpg vs 29, 29 mpg. So given your 2.99 diesel and 2.79 gas that is .0598 per mile driven, .0962068 respectively, or gas costing app 38% MORE per mile driven. So given 100,000 miles there is a dollar difference of $3,641 more for gasser operation. For the 1.8T, actual recommendation is to use PREMIUM unleaded regular, (higher cost: $2.99) but you might accuse me of further hair splitting. (not) This would put the cost to .1031034 per mile driven.
So I am extremely puzzled as to why folks would down play a 42% savings in fuel consumption!!! This is of course against a backdrop of a min of app $3. gas. In the over all mosaic of things we are of course splitting hairs here for a myriad of reasons. If, and this is a huge big IF, the nation could decrease fuel consumption by 42%, we probably would not have NEAR the ww conflict/s we seem to have! In a lot of respects, a journey usually begins with a single step. I do NOT think you have been off the planet for a while and just returned- Rip Van Winkle est, to a world wide oil crisis, etc, etc. More likely, you might be in the camp of paying lip service to decreased oil consumption and go on ones' merry consumptive way!?
So again, the question remains. Would you rather spend 1,249 (your figures) to 3,641 more?... or less? I am clearly in the LESS camp. If it has no real meaning to you, let me congratulate you!
Again I have given you the real world differences in the Jetta car prices at the time, of 500 (less for the 2.0), 246 over( the 1.8T) in comparison to the diesel model. Also the turbo gasser did cost more than the non turbo gasser)
If you can reference a real world new car price of $2,000 (rather high) difference due to the diesel option alone, please do. Until then, I would agree with Shipo, your swagged prices are not reflective. ("...way out of line...".
So in line with the Honda Civic mpg thread I look forward to Honda's diesel offerings! I think they should be a real hit and be slightly to a little better than VW in the MPG department. I based this on the mpg of the Civic vs the Jetta 2.0 (normally aspirated) and the 1.8T., 38-42 vs 29/29 mpg or app 28% better. If Honda can duplicate a 28% greater fuel economy in their diesel offerings that would put the Civic's mpg north of 51 mpg!! :shades:
With the VW diesel being such a success, why are they not producing it for 07?
BTW:
"I do NOT think you have been off the planet for a while and just returned- Rip Van Winkle est, to a world wide oil crisis, etc, etc. More likely, you might be in the camp of paying lip service to decreased oil consumption and go on ones' merry consumptive way!?"
You don't know a thing about me! So Butt Out with the personal attacks. We all have a right to post our opinions concerning cars. Looking back over your posts, you tend to do that with others that have an opinion different from yours.
Kip
Time has already told!!? This is already history. The examples given are for a 2003 TDI,1.8T, 2.0. Given the range of gasser Honda Civic results the only real question would be what one would get with a gasser Honda vs diesel Honda given similar driving conditions as I have reported in say an everyday commute. This is one reason why I would seriously consider a diesel Honda, specifically diesels' Civic, Accord, Pilot! Killer applications for my .02 cents. Will they all happen? Probably not!
..."You don't know a thing about me! So Butt Out with the personal attacks. We all have a right to post our opinions concerning cars. Looking back over your posts, you tend to do that with others that have an opinion different from yours"...
As you know even less about me! Like you, I post ..."our"... my opinions concerning cars- just like you. You might disagree with my conclusions, or even agree: but let the facts play a role in that disagreement, even agreement. Since you have not addressed facts presented in the post that so called "offends", I have no problem with one's expressing opinions and not letting the facts get in the way! Indeed you may "take" offense because the facts do not agree with what you presented or did NOT agree with your expressed opinions. Actually I am fine with it either/or in any matrix of ways! So let it alone! You are being way too defensive, since I did NOT personally attack YOU!
So if you do drive a diesel, you would tend NOT to be in that camp. Again, if you do drive a Civic, as I have noted we are in a sense splitting hairs here as most Civic drivers experience good mpg. So do you drive a diesel? :shades: Since the passenger vehicle fleet is upwards of 97% GASSER, with diesel being less than 3%, one can pretty much take that bet to the bank, now, eh?
So on the diesel, I report rather than SWAG. I drive the Civic (gasser) and again report rather than SWAG. I have as you probably have read, SWAG about Honda Civic diesels/gassers that others drive, since they are not available in the US market nor do I drive or own one; I also depend on other's to report their results.
Well I must first admit that my attraction to the Civic is a bit blah. However I needed something in a hurry, easy to resale, and decent on fuel so I bit the bullet. Dealer had an '07 EX auto to move fast for under invoice and the color got my attention (Tango Red Pearl with Ivory). I figure this will get me by until some more interesting cars come along......new TDI maybe hmmmmm? Civic has to be one of the better choices for holding value in the short term so here I am.
Gas mileage? Well I drove fairly easy on the first tank and got a tad over 35mpg. So it's about 10mpg low from what I averaged with the TDI (but with a manual and performance mods.....).
Performance wise....eh I miss the TDI. 0-60 is quicker with the civic (hold foot to floor requires little intelligence...) but this baby has to shift a lot to keep momentum going. I've got hills the TDI would accelerate up in 5th gear that the Civic is struggling to hold in 3rd. Handling/steering feel isn't even in the ballpark compared the the Jetta, although I admit I had some mods. I also realized the newer Jettas are much bigger and probably just as floaty now. My gen Jetta was more go-kartish.
I can see why these are attractive though. Fit and finish and interior materials beats the pants off my much more expensive Odyssey. Hoping to increase mpg's a little more as it breaks in. Later!
The bottom line: insurance as well as resale value/sw are very very good for the TDI equipt VW's.
..."....eh I miss the TDI. 0-60 is quicker with the civic (hold foot to floor requires little intelligence...) but this baby has to shift a lot to keep momentum going. I've got hills the TDI would accelerate up in 5th gear that the Civic is struggling to hold in 3rd. Handling/steering feel isn't even in the ballpark compared the the Jetta, although I admit I had some mods. I also realized the newer Jettas are much bigger and probably just as floaty now. My gen Jetta was more go-kartish"...
Performance wise, I share your perceptions!
I have mentioned in other posts the Civic (my) auto tranmission seems to have a consumer perception of being ponderous in "finding itself". For best mpg, it is best not to over ride this... searching procedure. :shades: Let it find itself under each condition. (feels weird to me, but oh well.)
In light of what happened to your TDI, and the markets lack of 2007,2008 TDI models, you did make a great choice in a 07 Civic EX: under invoice! YES! !! All the best!!
Let me know on the TDI threads, when you start to consider the new TDI;s! :shades:
Tiguan has my interest. An AWD that gets 35mpg would be terrific and not require me firing up the V8 truck for crap-weather trekking. Of course VW isn't known for offering a TDI with AWD.......at least not in these United States.
Glad most went as well with the accident as can be expected with that type of thing. Generally insurance companies tend to want us to give them our cars.
Thanks for the comparison of fuel mileage and handling between the MT TDI and the AT Civic. Looks as though the TDI got about 28% better than the Civic, or the Civic gets 22% less than the TDI. Depending on how it is viewed.
It will be interesting to see what Honda comes up with in the way of a diesel, in performance and price. That Civic mileage may get even better as it breaks in. Although 35 mpg seems really a good average for a new engine.
What type driving do you do daily?
Thanks,
Kip