wai: the 225-40-18 do not interfere at all, but realize the HFP kit does lower the car about 1", so that may impact clearance. My understanding is that the lowering is required for 18", but I can't be certain of that.
I just like the looks.....
Better performance would be nice, but let's be real: it's a Civic, not even an Si. If I had wanted performance i would have chosen something with at least 2 more cylinders, probably the Accord or Altima v6 coupe. But I wanted a good looking car that would last a long time..with good mileage. so it's a civic for me for the next 10 years (i hope).
Honestly, it's my 1st Honda and the lack of torque is very irritating after 15 years of driving v6 Camrys. It takes a LOT of getting used to! Other than the lack of torque, I'm very, very happy with it.
My previous car was a 97 Camry v6, and at 10.5:1 it did see some benefit from 89 or even 91/93 fuel. 89 seemed to be the best bang-for-the-buck, but realize that car has a lot more HP and a ton more torque. (197/212?). I moved that car from 195 to 215 tires just to help keep them planted in normal traffic. On the Camry, I noticed more improvement with 89 over 87 than I did with 91/3 over 89.
I've never tried anything other than 87 in the Civic so I can't say if more octane would make any difference or not. it may be worth a try if you are interested in doing so over a few tankfuls, I would be interested in what you find.
Honestly, it's my 1st Honda and the lack of torque is very irritating after 15 years of driving v6 Camrys
The key to this isn't the "Honda" part, but the fact that you stepped from a 3.0L or larger V6 into a 1.8L 4-cyl. Having driven both a Corolla with a 4-speed Auto, the Civic actually feels a lot more lively. Welcome to Honda.
I doubt you'd complain about lack of torque in a V6 Accord.
"I doubt you'd complain about lack of torque in a V6 Accord."
not now, for sure! But the older Honda V6 engines were pretty upside down with much higher HP than torque, and requiring rather high RPM to get the rated HP. Mercifully they've changed that on most of their engines and they're pretty much in lock step with Toyota. I think the s2000 still needs over 8k to get the rated HP, iirc.
I still love driving that 97 v6 camry (my son now has it, 230,000 miles!), I put almost all of those miles on it myself over 10 years of Houston commuting. But, alas, the newer Camrys are battleships and imho, just ugly. The Hondas have won me over with far superior styling.
If i didn't need the superior mileage (I commute 65 miles daily), I would have that 08 Accord V6 coupe in a heartbeat. Absolutely one of the best lookers on the road today.
My 08 EX-L AT 's first 600 miles (2 fills) got 31-32 MPG 80% highway at 60-65 mph. a little lower than I expected. This time I filled up 3 Gallons of 93 octane to mix with 10.2G 87, to see if there is any improvment in the MPG. Is it normal that DRL will turn off once you turn on your headlight (low or high beam)?
Same basic mileage that I get. I have the same model with 15,000 Miles and the very best that I have been able to get is 38 mpg on a 280 mile trip straight hiway at pretty much fixed speed of 70 mph. Heard a lot about super mpg on these cars but have yet to see it on day to day. Would be interested in the results of the premium test.
I am almost at 10,000 miles, after only a couple weeks over three Months. '08 LX Auto. MPG average is 39. Low of 36.3, high of 45mpg. When I start a road trip I top off using Premium. Fill with premium first gas stop, then go to mid-grade for rest of the trip. Usually like that. I keep track of every fill; Octane, Gallons, MPG. My first tank out of the dealership was 36.3, so did fine right out of the gate. Since that first refill have rounded to even or .5. I mean 37 or 37.5, not 37 .1 or 37.8, etc.. I usually round Down! Get real good mileage on two-lane hiways, too. I miss my Sienna, but this kind of mileage takes some of the sting out. I have been gone almost every week since I bought this thing. Do need to take it easy, and turn the key off more often, for the long haul. :shades:
So you think the hign octane helps your mpg, but even though our EX is around 30 pounds heavier than your LX, your mpg is around 5 mpg better than mine.
Must be a lot of variation car to car... I will try the high octane to see if it makes any dif, but I do the same thing on documenting every fill up every station, cost etc. All this car does is pretty much two and 4 lane highway, and to be honest, I only get about 10% better mileage than my 04 accord..... Would not have downsized for that type of diference, had I known....
I think at 600 miles, you should remain calm My worst mileage with my 08 EX 5spd was my first 2 tanks, and I got a little over 32 mpg on both. Then it started climbing. My overall average now at 7100 miles is 35.3 MPG and still climbing, and that's at about a 65/35 hwy/city mix. Considering the EPA combined estimate is 29 MPG, I don't think that is anything to sneeze at. Even better after coming from an '01 RAM 1500 that got 13 overall.
My best tank has been 37.5 mpg, and that was mostly highway, under 65 for the most part, with no AC. I can duplicate 37 pretty consistently that way even with a 70/30 mix. All on good old RUL. I honestly don't think higher octane is going to be cost effective for you.
I use higher Octane on road trips, but not for normal day to day driving. The higher Octane on long trips is just a habit developed from experience. With other cars. Got better mileage on Interstate trips using higher Octane, so stuck with it on this Civic. I use regular, 87 Octane, maybe 85% of the time. Also don't drive with a full load of gear and passengers. That's why I downsized - couldn't justify the gas $$ for just one person, and no, or little, gear. My brother has an '05 Accord 4 cylinder Automatic, and I remember him smiling about the freeway gas mileage early on, 40+ on some long leg of a journey. Don't know if that has remained constant over time, or if he ever uses higher Octane. I do know he uses full synthetic oil, FWIW.
I'm sure it's been said before but it bears saying, keep track of the type of fuel you are using. If it is an ethanol blend your milage may be between 10-20% LOWER than with a non-ethanol blend. Ethanol fuels dupe the computers in most cars into thinking they are running lean and cause them to make the fuel mixture richer i.e. pump more fuel thus lowering your milage.
So if you are getting 29 MPG with an ethanol blend you could possibly increase your mileage to between 31.9 and 34.8 MPG just by switching.
I'm sure it's been said before but it bears saying, keep track of the type of fuel you are using. If it is an ethanol blend your mileage may be between 10-20% LOWER than with a non-ethanol blend.
Yes this is true but some states like New Hampshire have mandated 10% ethanol in all the gas sold here. So we don't have a choice. I know I could get better mpg if I was using straight gas. Sadly not an option for us here.
I measure my 650-800 miles mileage on my third fuel fill up which has 3 gallons of 93 Octane, which I still got 31.5 mpg, which is very consistent with my first 650 miles mpg. But on this drive, I drove very aggressively to break in the engine. I think your mpg is very normal (more or less same as mine). You can experiment by using higher octane gas to see if there is any improvement.
Did some research in 87 octane vs 92 octane a while back. Here are the conclusions, based on modern, computer controlled vehicles.
There is no more energy in 92 than in 87.
If a modern day car is designed to run on 87, there is no advantage to running 92.
Higher octane simply means the fuel's ability to reduce the chances of engine "KNOCK" while under stress. Such as towing, heavy loads, red line operation, turbo or super charger applications, and such.
Engine ignition "spark" is timed so that the fuel ignition begins when the piston has almost reached or slightly over ridden "TOP DEAD CENTER" of it's travel, and is ready for the "Explosion" that drives it down for it's power stroke. That explosion actually takes place over a period of time. The faster the piston is traveling, the earlier the spark can take place or "LEAD". If the chamber should over heat due to stressfull conditions, that extra heat can contribute to "pre-ignition", where the fuel is totally ignited too early.
Under those stressfull conditions, if the engine should knock, the KNOCK SENSOR in the engine will retard the spark timing to compensate.
Higher octane has additional additives to help prevent the knock and therefore help to keep the computer from having to retard the spark. Thereby probably helping to achieve slightly better mileage under those stressfull conditions.
It gets a bit more complicated than that, but in layman terms that is the story.
Bottom line. Under "Normal" conditions use the octane required by the manufacturer. There is no more energy in 92 than in 87. There are more "Anti-Knock" additives in the higher octane fuels. Under all "Normal" driving conditions, the engine computer will deal with the timing.
One last thing. The temp gauge in the dash is reading water temperature. It will not indicate, except in rare conditions, the stress in the combustion chamber. So if you hear a "pinging" sound when the engine is under stressfull loads, a higher octane fuel may be in order, even though the temp gauge shows normal.
Please clarify me if my reasoning is wrong. The owner's manual said require at least 87 Octane, so it implies that you can use any fuel higher than 87. In this engine, the compression ratio is 10.5:1 which will be more appropriate if you use higher than 87.
the increased power in higher octane fuels comes from the "slower burn" of the high octane fuel. This sounds opposite of common sense, but a slower/ more even burn will give more power than a quick flash burn of a low octane. Higher compression engines are more prone to compression-ignition, that is, the fuel burns due to pressure instead of spark, and since compression burn (similar to a diesel) almost always happens too soon, pinging is the result. The engine with knock sensors will detect this and retard or delay the spark to reduce the pinging. Unfortunately retarding the ignition also reduces the power. So by using low octane fuel that is prone to pinging, the engine with knock sensors retards and power is lost. That's how lower octane fuel lowers power. In engines without knock sensors, the burn is just faster and that faster burn reduces power. And the knocking severely impacts engine life.
The loss of power is noticeable in some cars more than others. My 97 Camry v6 (3.0L, 10.5:1 compression) was very much affected by octane. 93 would make it scream. My wife's 02 Highlander (same engine but with VVTI) has much less noticeable power loss on 87 vs 93. The VVTI in Toyota's case combined with newer ECU controls seems to avoid much of the discernable power lost by using 87 (91 is recommended in both the 02 Highlander and the 97 Camry). Honda's controls work in basically the same way.
When the owners manual states "at least 87 octane " in actually means not to use less than 87 octane. While the wording is somewhat misleading it is lower octane that is to be avoided. It is vague as well on higher than 87 but I believe somewhere in the ovners manual it will simply say "use regular fuel" which is 87 octane. I am one of those who believe that it is a huge waste of $$$$ to use other than regular in anything except vehicles that specifically state to use mid grade or premium.
>" When the owners manual states "at least 87 octane " in actually means not to use less than 87 octane... ...I am one of those who believe that it is a huge waste of $$$$ to use other than regular in anything except vehicles that specifically state to use mid grade or premium."
Well stated and I agree !.
Most of the research I did came from publications produced by various oil companies.
Slower burn of high octane allows the ignition timing to be set earlier. This will not necessarily benefit an engine that has a "timing" designed for 87 octane. Except when the combustion chamber is being really stressed above and beyond normal, and running hotter than normal.
In other words, using 93 won't necessarily trigger the timing to advance, so the slower burn can be utilized.
That is my understanding and we normally get excellent mileage.
I personally can't understand why folks buy an "Economy" car and want to find ways to spend as much money as possible on fuel.
>"When the owners manual states "at least 87 octane " in actually means not to use less than 87 octane. While the wording is somewhat misleading it is lower octane that is to be avoided."
I've never seen gasoline lower than 87 octane, at least not labelled as gasoline.
Suddenly, without any apparent reason, my MPG jumped dramatically from 26 mpg to 37 mpg. It's an 07 Civic EX, automatic, with 30,000 miles on it. I had been getting a low of 25 mpg to a high of 27-point-something for the life of the car, but then two tanks ago, it went up a little... to 29 mpg on one tank. Then, two days ago, I drove from So Cal to Fresno, about a 500 mile round trip. I got 37.5 mpg. I had the air conditioner going full blast, and my gas was the same... Costco 87 octane. Not only that, but I had to scale Angeles National Forest through I-5's Grapevine. This meant climbing with high RPM's for miles.
I can't understand it. Since the beginning of this model year, there seems to have been two camps of owners. Those who get Civic-like mpg, and those like me who did not and who were surprised by lower mpg. Now my car has dramatically joined the first group. Has anybody else had an experience like this? Is there any rational explanation for it?
I can see it varying some, but 10mpg...??? Last weekend I was shuttling friends and cargo among various points, and my MPG for the tank went a little below 40, a loss of about 2-3mpg. The humid weather we had probably didn't help, and it'll be interesting to see if things change as it gets cooler here in New England. (You can follow it on http://www.ecomodder.com, my car's name is "CuteNiceButNotTheSame").
HOWEVER...to jump *that much* (27 to 37) is really incredible if you haven't changed your driving type or habits. Note, however, that if you usually do all stop-and-go city or sit in traffic, and then your 500 mile trip was highway, one could expect a change like this. It would be interesting to see what your next few tanks are like while you do more of your "normal" driving--please keep us posted.
And from Honda: The Insight comes back as a 4-seater in the spring. I haven't heard mpg estimates on that yet, though (not that I have any complaints with 40+ mpg in the Civic this summer).
No one gets the same gas mileage and no one should get all worked up when others seem to get a better mileage from the same car. We all drive differently
I drive one mile one way in the morning without the engine warmed up, hit a couple of long red lights and get about 15 1/2 miles per gallen. ( 08 Accord by the way. Had a 07 Civic with 22 City/34 Highway mileage with below driving habits )
I drive with the car warmed up, and further, and sometimes with shorter red lights and longer stretches of city road and get 22 miles per gallen.
I had 32 lbs of air in the tire and got less miles per gallon then later tried it with 37 lbs of air and got better gas mileage.
Later still, when the car was broken in the gas mileage increased.
So, unless we know exactly how someone drives, where they drive, in what weather, amount of air in tires, air on or off, and so on, we can never go by someone elses mileage.
Our 2007 1.8 EX Coupe on a recent trip from Mobile, Al to Chicago, Il. delivered 40.5 MPG on the road. Seems like mileage has gotten better. With AC on, 2 people, luggage.
I do top off the tank, to the rim, car has not blown up as yet (some have warned about topping off). The reason I top off is really check the mileage as accurately as possible.
Around town, stop and go getting 25.5 to 28.5.
My goal was to purchase a 40 MPG car (on the road mileage) and the Civic has delivered.
73 MPH I can live with, really a pretty comfortable speed.
>"I do top off the tank, to the rim, car has not blown up as yet (some have warned about topping off). The reason I top off is really check the mileage as accurately as possible."
Just curious. Are you waiting for something to go wrong? Something that could be very costly, before you heed the warnings? :confuse:
Your mileage check would be just as accurate if you fill the tank with the pump at the slowest setting. Wait for it to click off. Wait about 5 seconds for the bubbles to settle. Then gently fill to the next click.
If your area is on seasonal ethanol usage, you may have started using non-ethanol laced gasoline. That will suddenlty and dramatically increase mileage. But if that is the case, expect it to go back down in the spring.
I have an 08 Automatic Civic and city driving (downtown chicago) getting 18-19pmg, shouldn't I be getting better then that? I have 13k miles. Please help!
Gas in the U.S. of A. is 87 octane minimum but as those who drive into Mexico and points south know Pemex regular gas is less than 87 so one may actually encounter sub 87 octane within driving distance outside of the continental US (Mexico)
Probably not. I thought that by now everyone knew the dynamics of heavy city (read...stop and go with more stop than go) is by far the worst circumstance for fuel economy. Remember, you are getting ZERO mpg much of the time (while stopped) and not much better on the "go" part because you accelerate (and there is another No-No for good fuel economy) to only a modest speed before stopping yet again. The cycle repeats and fuel economy goes down the tubes. 18-19 is actually good under these difficult conditions.
I would hazard a guess and say correct. Doing the kind of driving (downtown Chicago) is probably one of the most grueling environments for this persons Civic!
"Regular" gas at a Shell station in Estes Park, CO was 85 octane. "Regular" gas at an EXXON in Cody, WY was 85.5 octane. same for Casper, WY, Jackson, WY, Grant Village at Yellowstone, and Ft Collins, CO.
There's plenty of places in the U.S. of A. where gas is less than 87 octane.
>"Probably not. I thought that by now everyone knew the dynamics of heavy city (read...stop and go with more stop than go) is by far the worst circumstance for fuel economy."
Good Post! That pretty much sums it up.
sphere99,
City driving is different for every person. Heavy traffic, lots of stop and go, and short trips do seriously effect mileage. Can't expect good mileage while burning fuel at a traffic light or creeping along at 1 mph.
Take it out on the hyway and drive a conservative 65 and see how she does.
You purchased the wrong car, should have gotten a hybrid.
You must be driving your car like your at a drag strip.
I have a 2007 Civic EX Coupe 1.8 and get 25-28 City, stop and go. Get 40.5 @ 73 mph on the highway (blindfolded).
Also, check your math skills.
I know Chicago driving, I can understand poor mileage on the Kennedy in a log jam.
Do your self a favor, drive 65 mph lile the guy said, check that mileage on a road trip, remember it, and never check your bumper to bumper mileage again.
Great advice, plenty of available high paying jobs out there and home prices are at all time highs, also shouldn't take too long to make up the savings in gas. How long do you think?
You should have 32-33 MPG if you drive mostly highway (80%) at highway speed of 65 MPH, which is what I get for my 08 EXL Auto after break-in period at 1,600 miles.
I have an '08 LX MT Sedan that I purchased on July 2. I got 36 mpg on the first tank, near 40 on the second tank and have seen between 41 and 43 ever since. Most of the miles I put on the car are during my 32 mile commute to work. The roads consist of 20% two lane country highways at 55 mph (with some sharp low-speed curves), 70% interstate at 60 mph (with frequent stop and go BS) and 10% surface street driving at 35 mph. I'm pretty happy with the economy I've gotten out of this little car, and am always trying to find new ways to improve it. I tend to stay in the slow lane and give myself plenty of room in front so that I can minimize the odds of having to come to a complete stop. I generally put the car in neutral and coast while going down hills or preparing to stop or go around sharp turns. Plus, I accelerate about as slowly as I can without totally annoying those around me.
'08 Civic LX Auto, My commute is 59 miles each way. I'd say about 97% highway. Middle to fast lane driving at speeds of 73-80. First tank was 34MPG, Average after 4000 miles is 38MPG. If I keep the starts smooth and the speed under 75, I get 39. For my current tank, I'm checking aggressive driving mileage, I'll post when I finish the tank, After 200 miles so far, It's looking like it will be 36-37. Not a big penalty for revving it to 5000 from start.
Side note, I thought the automatics where supposed to get slightly better mileage than the manuals. After reading a few posts it sounds like the manuals are getting 40-41. What's up with that?
Obviously while results WILL vary, most Honda autos get (EPA ratings) 1 mpg LESS than manuals.
Under the conditions that you say you drive the car, I would swag those conditions are the BEST for MPG, (least) wear, longevity, etc etc. In effect you are driving the car in the almost exact (ideal) design parameters (sweet spot). You might also want to check back to survey link I posted some time/posts ago, to see where your mpg results fall. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Your results fall withing app 95-98%, aka not many folks get the mpg you report.
Indeed @2004 that was not the case. 2009 models (constant improvement) have 36 H auto vs 34 H M. and 25 c auto vs 26 c M, so you still would be half wrong. The bottom line is there are penalties /corrections for automatics vs manuals.
There is an oxymoronic thing going on and that is if one does mostly to 100% highway driving, it makes more sense to get a manual as it is cheaper, lighter,with less parasitic losses, and a manual is way cheaper to repair when it/they go out. Indeed the same gearing of which you speak would amplify the M advantage.
However if I got 34/36 mpg in my 04 Honda, I would think something amiss. 38-42 mpg. ( in a normal commute auto) So while I have not run like models (sans A/M )side by side, there is no doubt in my mind I would get at least 1 mpg better in a M. But as I have said that is one of the penalites.
My more aggressive driving MPG turned out to be 36. Same commute, 97% hwy 59 miles each way). Speeds 75-88 depending on what the traffic allowed, a couple of runs up to 98, and stomping on it out of entrance ramps (4 each way, hwy to hwy transitions). Still not bad. For this next tank, I'm driving like a [non-permissible content removed], nice and slow entering highways and keeping the speed under 72, more like 65-70. If this doesn't hit 40MPG nothing will. I wonder what the mileage would be if gas didn't have ethanol mixed in.
Comments
I just like the looks.....
Better performance would be nice, but let's be real: it's a Civic, not even an Si. If I had wanted performance i would have chosen something with at least 2 more cylinders, probably the Accord or Altima v6 coupe. But I wanted a good looking car that would last a long time..with good mileage. so it's a civic for me for the next 10 years (i hope).
Honestly, it's my 1st Honda and the lack of torque is very irritating after 15 years of driving v6 Camrys. It takes a LOT of getting used to! Other than the lack of torque, I'm very, very happy with it.
My previous car was a 97 Camry v6, and at 10.5:1 it did see some benefit from 89 or even 91/93 fuel. 89 seemed to be the best bang-for-the-buck, but realize that car has a lot more HP and a ton more torque. (197/212?). I moved that car from 195 to 215 tires just to help keep them planted in normal traffic. On the Camry, I noticed more improvement with 89 over 87 than I did with 91/3 over 89.
I've never tried anything other than 87 in the Civic so I can't say if more octane would make any difference or not. it may be worth a try if you are interested in doing so over a few tankfuls, I would be interested in what you find.
The key to this isn't the "Honda" part, but the fact that you stepped from a 3.0L or larger V6 into a 1.8L 4-cyl. Having driven both a Corolla with a 4-speed Auto, the Civic actually feels a lot more lively. Welcome to Honda.
I doubt you'd complain about lack of torque in a V6 Accord.
not now, for sure! But the older Honda V6 engines were pretty upside down with much higher HP than torque, and requiring rather high RPM to get the rated HP. Mercifully they've changed that on most of their engines and they're pretty much in lock step with Toyota. I think the s2000 still needs over 8k to get the rated HP, iirc.
I still love driving that 97 v6 camry (my son now has it, 230,000 miles!), I put almost all of those miles on it myself over 10 years of Houston commuting. But, alas, the newer Camrys are battleships and imho, just ugly. The Hondas have won me over with far superior styling.
If i didn't need the superior mileage (I commute 65 miles daily), I would have that 08 Accord V6 coupe in a heartbeat. Absolutely one of the best lookers on the road today.
Heard a lot about super mpg on these cars but have yet to see it on day to day.
Would be interested in the results of the premium test.
Would not have downsized for that type of diference, had I known....
My best tank has been 37.5 mpg, and that was mostly highway, under 65 for the most part, with no AC. I can duplicate 37 pretty consistently that way even with a 70/30 mix. All on good old RUL. I honestly don't think higher octane is going to be cost effective for you.
My brother has an '05 Accord 4 cylinder Automatic, and I remember him smiling about the freeway gas mileage early on, 40+ on some long leg of a journey. Don't know if that has remained constant over time, or if he ever uses higher Octane. I do know he uses full synthetic oil, FWIW.
So if you are getting 29 MPG with an ethanol blend you could possibly increase your mileage to between 31.9 and 34.8 MPG just by switching.
Just a thought.
Yes this is true but some states like New Hampshire have mandated 10% ethanol in all the gas sold here. So we don't have a choice. I know I could get better mpg if I was using straight gas. Sadly not an option for us here.
I think your mpg is very normal (more or less same as mine). You can experiment by using higher octane gas to see if there is any improvement.
Here are the conclusions, based on modern, computer controlled vehicles.
There is no more energy in 92 than in 87.
If a modern day car is designed to run on 87, there is no advantage to running 92.
Higher octane simply means the fuel's ability to reduce the chances of engine "KNOCK" while under stress. Such as towing, heavy loads, red line operation, turbo or super charger applications, and such.
Engine ignition "spark" is timed so that the fuel ignition begins when the piston has almost reached or slightly over ridden "TOP DEAD CENTER" of it's travel, and is ready for the "Explosion" that drives it down for it's power stroke. That explosion actually takes place over a period of time. The faster the piston is traveling, the earlier the spark can take place or "LEAD". If the chamber should over heat due to stressfull conditions, that extra heat can contribute to "pre-ignition", where the fuel is totally ignited too early.
Under those stressfull conditions, if the engine should knock, the KNOCK SENSOR in the engine will retard the spark timing to compensate.
Higher octane has additional additives to help prevent the knock and therefore help to keep the computer from having to retard the spark. Thereby probably helping to achieve slightly better mileage under those stressfull conditions.
It gets a bit more complicated than that, but in layman terms that is the story.
Bottom line. Under "Normal" conditions use the octane required by the manufacturer. There is no more energy in 92 than in 87. There are more "Anti-Knock" additives in the higher octane fuels. Under all "Normal" driving conditions, the engine computer will deal with the timing.
One last thing. The temp gauge in the dash is reading water temperature. It will not indicate, except in rare conditions, the stress in the combustion chamber. So if you hear a "pinging" sound when the engine is under stressfull loads, a higher octane fuel may be in order, even though the temp gauge shows normal.
Kip
The loss of power is noticeable in some cars more than others. My 97 Camry v6 (3.0L, 10.5:1 compression) was very much affected by octane. 93 would make it scream. My wife's 02 Highlander (same engine but with VVTI) has much less noticeable power loss on 87 vs 93. The VVTI in Toyota's case combined with newer ECU controls seems to avoid much of the discernable power lost by using 87 (91 is recommended in both the 02 Highlander and the 97 Camry). Honda's controls work in basically the same way.
Well stated and I agree !.
Most of the research I did came from publications produced by various oil companies.
Slower burn of high octane allows the ignition timing to be set earlier. This will not necessarily benefit an engine that has a "timing" designed for 87 octane. Except when the combustion chamber is being really stressed above and beyond normal, and running hotter than normal.
In other words, using 93 won't necessarily trigger the timing to advance, so the slower burn can be utilized.
That is my understanding and we normally get excellent mileage.
I personally can't understand why folks buy an "Economy" car and want to find ways to spend as much money as possible on fuel.
To each his own !
Kip
I've never seen gasoline lower than 87 octane, at least not labelled as gasoline.
Well I get that in my 2008 Civic Si which is a 6 spd manual and 197HP. I think your mileage will go up as you get more miles on the car.
I can't understand it. Since the beginning of this model year, there seems to have been two camps of owners. Those who get Civic-like mpg, and those like me who did not and who were surprised by lower mpg. Now my car has dramatically joined the first group. Has anybody else had an experience like this? Is there any rational explanation for it?
HOWEVER...to jump *that much* (27 to 37) is really incredible if you haven't changed your driving type or habits. Note, however, that if you usually do all stop-and-go city or sit in traffic, and then your 500 mile trip was highway, one could expect a change like this. It would be interesting to see what your next few tanks are like while you do more of your "normal" driving--please keep us posted.
And from Honda: The Insight comes back as a 4-seater in the spring. I haven't heard mpg estimates on that yet, though (not that I have any complaints with 40+ mpg in the Civic this summer).
...kl...
I drive one mile one way in the morning without the engine warmed up, hit a couple of long red lights and get about 15 1/2 miles per gallen. ( 08 Accord by the way. Had a 07 Civic with 22 City/34 Highway mileage with below driving habits )
I drive with the car warmed up, and further, and sometimes with shorter red lights and longer stretches of city road and get 22 miles per gallen.
I had 32 lbs of air in the tire and got less miles per gallon then later tried it with 37 lbs of air and got better gas mileage.
Later still, when the car was broken in the gas mileage increased.
So, unless we know exactly how someone drives, where they drive, in what weather, amount of air in tires, air on or off, and so on, we can never go by someone elses mileage.
Our 2007 1.8 EX Coupe on a recent trip from Mobile, Al to Chicago, Il. delivered 40.5 MPG on the road. Seems like mileage has gotten better. With AC on, 2 people, luggage.
I do top off the tank, to the rim, car has not blown up as yet (some have warned about topping off). The reason I top off is really check the mileage as accurately as possible.
Around town, stop and go getting 25.5 to 28.5.
My goal was to purchase a 40 MPG car (on the road mileage) and the Civic has delivered.
73 MPH I can live with, really a pretty comfortable speed.
Just curious. Are you waiting for something to go wrong? Something that could be very costly, before you heed the warnings? :confuse:
Your mileage check would be just as accurate if you fill the tank with the pump at the slowest setting. Wait for it to click off. Wait about 5 seconds for the bubbles to settle. Then gently fill to the next click.
Kip
There's plenty of places in the U.S. of A. where gas is less than 87 octane.
Good Post! That pretty much sums it up.
sphere99,
City driving is different for every person. Heavy traffic, lots of stop and go, and short trips do seriously effect mileage. Can't expect good mileage while burning fuel at a traffic light or creeping along at 1 mph.
Take it out on the hyway and drive a conservative 65 and see how she does.
Kip
You must be driving your car like your at a drag strip.
I have a 2007 Civic EX Coupe 1.8 and get 25-28 City, stop and go. Get 40.5 @ 73 mph on the highway (blindfolded).
Also, check your math skills.
I know Chicago driving, I can understand poor mileage on the Kennedy in a log jam.
Do your self a favor, drive 65 mph lile the guy said, check that mileage on a road trip, remember it, and never check your bumper to bumper mileage again.
Take the CTA.
Quit your job and move closer to home.
Sell your home and move closer to work.
Sell your home and move closer to work.
Great advice, plenty of available high paying jobs out there and home prices are at all time highs, also shouldn't take too long to make up the savings in gas. How long do you think?
*sarcasm*
Side note, I thought the automatics where supposed to get slightly better mileage than the manuals. After reading a few posts it sounds like the manuals are getting 40-41. What's up with that?
Under the conditions that you say you drive the car, I would swag those conditions are the BEST for MPG, (least) wear, longevity, etc etc. In effect you are driving the car in the almost exact (ideal) design parameters (sweet spot). You might also want to check back to survey link I posted some time/posts ago, to see where your mpg results fall. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Your results fall withing app 95-98%, aka not many folks get the mpg you report.
Not at highway speeds. Because of it's taller 5th gear the LX auto actually gets better highway mileage than the LX manual (36 vs 34 mpg)
There is an oxymoronic thing going on and that is if one does mostly to 100% highway driving, it makes more sense to get a manual as it is cheaper, lighter,with less parasitic losses, and a manual is way cheaper to repair when it/they go out. Indeed the same gearing of which you speak would amplify the M advantage.
However if I got 34/36 mpg in my 04 Honda, I would think something amiss. 38-42 mpg. ( in a normal commute auto) So while I have not run like models (sans A/M )side by side, there is no doubt in my mind I would get at least 1 mpg better in a M. But as I have said that is one of the penalites.
For this next tank, I'm driving like a [non-permissible content removed], nice and slow entering highways and keeping the speed under 72, more like 65-70. If this doesn't hit 40MPG nothing will.
I wonder what the mileage would be if gas didn't have ethanol mixed in.