Honda Civic Real World MPG

rkamath

I moved into the US recently and this is my first car but I had a Corolla for about 2 months in 2006 and it gave me upwards of 37MPG. Point to be noted is in that case it was summer and I was in a small town in Minnesota where I drove on cruise most of the time. I have been driving for over 12 yrs now and previous cars that I have owned have always given me MPGs that was at or above the rated mpg for the vehicle

rkamath

for the last couple of weeks it was <15 mins Kip. This week onwards it is a much longer drive 27+ miles (mostly freeway) so I am hoping that this time around the mileage will improve

sebring95

In addition....winter fuel has an emissions additive that will hurt your fuel economy. Usually 1-2mpg depending on the vehicle and driving circumstances...could easily be more. Add to that you may be getting 10% ethanol which also kills mpg.

As mentioned, idling burns a lot of fuel especially with the defroster (A/C)running. Price you pay for comfor/convenience, you just can't expect the mpg to be as good.

ruking1

First of all given the scenarios desciption, there are a lot of variables effecting mpg.

Yes it should to inevitably is the answer to your first question.

To your second question, winter driving (aka inclement weather) has an enormously brutal effect on the mileage and on the car.

rkamath

Would like to thank everyone who responded to my post. This time around I got 33 miles to a gallon. Not awesome by any angle but a sure shot improvement over the 24.5 that I got the last time around. The things that I did are listed below
1. Check air pressure in the tyres. I got a low pressure alert but the dealer asked me to ignore it since inclement weather made the alert come on at odd times. I checked and found that the car tyres were significantly under-inflated.
2. Almost eliminated the remote-ignition feature. Now that I know the mileage, I might start using it once again
3. Avoided the defrost button, instead burnt a few calories scraping the ice off the car using a scraper
4. Weather also played it's part. It did not snow the last week and a half and the temperatures were in the teens to mid twenties (F) which is much better than the sub zero arctic weather the last time around
5. Since I moved homes, bulk of my driving (~90%) has been on the freeways where I average 55~60 MPH and the average drive time is > 25 mins

Hope that summer and the end of the break-in period improves mileage further.

Thanks and Regards

jwifferdill

I went from averaging in the mid 30s combined city/hwy driving in the fall of last year to hovering under 30mpg due to the extreme Minnesota winter we have been having. Winter blend fuel combined with cold temperatures result in poor mileage. All highway driving I can still manage 35mpg or so, but the short trips around the city really kill mileage.

mzblue

i got a 2009 civic 4door sedan on 1/6. came with the full tank of gas from the dealership and i got 3.8 gallons/$6 worth of fuel when i went to jersey. Since i've had this car, i'll say 40-50% have been highway driving, the rest have been city driving or doing 25mph on 95 towards washington because of the awful traffic or driving through the townships in jersey. i've also done lots of city driving in baltimore. The fuel tank is 13.2gallons and add the 3.8gal i purchased in jersey with a current mileage of a little over 700miles, i'd say this thing has averaged 41 miles combined.
Prior to topping up with that 3.8 gallons in philly, i'd driven from the dealership in germantown to baltimore, driven around baltimore city couple days, then down route 40 and 95 to mt laurel,NJ and then to hillside, new jersey all the way up north jersey where i had to drive in the snow and back to mt laurel, then to cherry hill and back to mt laurel and then i decided to fill up in philly on my way back to baltimore and i only needed 3.8gallons. One 1 or 2 occasions when it was super icy and raining ice, i drove in D3 which is supposed to eat up more gas. otherwise, i drove in D4 all the time.
i kinda wanted to see the exact miles i got but once the bars on my gas guage got to 2 bars and the light came on, i figured it's time to fill up.
So 17 gallons got me 700miles, with a little bit left in the tank when the light came on to refill. My 2000 civic got me an average of 33-35mpg, most of which was highway.
The 09 beats that. i really hope it stays up this way or gets better in the summer when the weather gets better and don't have to warm up my car like crazy before driving. I was beating myself up for buying a new car when my old civic is still in perfect condition but the mileage the 09 gives makes me feel better now. i was expecting to get 35mpg like my 2000 civic.

oh, i have to add i only warm up my car for ab out 7-10minutes then leave the lot when i know i'll hit the red light just when i get out of the parking lot so i can sit there for 30more seconds.

ruking1

My .02 cents is it is really hard to really know what is going on while you are breaking in the vehicle. I didn't really start giving full trend analysis to my figures till the first oil change @ 10,000 miles. I do know this however, if you do not warm up the car for 7-10 mins and just start it up and go, I can almost guarantee you the mpg will improve.

Anthropus8

I have a 2007 manual Civic coupe. For the first year and a half, I was getting 32 mpg in the city (sitting in Philly traffic, that's more than it sounds) and about 38 - 40 mpg on the highway. Late last year, I hit a (very poorly placed) curb - hard. It knocked the car out of alignment, headlights went cockeyed, etc. I fixed the headlights on my own and have had the alignment fixed twice (apparently Firestone doesn't take a lot of pride in their work), but I'm still only getting about 26/34 mpg.

I asked both mechanics to check and see if anything else was out of joint, and neither came up with anything. All regular maintenance has been taken care of, so it's not anything like the air filter, etc.

Any suggestions??

ruking1

Since you mention no tire abnormalities, a good place to start is to go back to the alignment center and ask how far out of alignment it really was!!I Most places anymore have sheet print outs, i.e., before/specification/after(actual) Ultimately You want to systematically eliminate hidden (other) damage, as a result of hitting an unrelated part that so called changed your lamps aim!!?? So barring any mechanic issues, the next more likely the style of driving in your environment has the most to do with the mpg issue.

Anthropus8

I have the printout of the most recent alignment. The sheet indicates that all four wheels are now within the acceptable range (though I can't imaging they'd hand me a sheet saying that they'd done the alignment and the wheels were outside the acceptable range).

I also explained to both mechanics what had happened, told them about the headlamp alignment (which was only the bulbs, not the actually headlights) and asked them to take a look to see if anything else needed fixing. Neither one said they'd found anything - and I've never known a mechanic to not find work that needed to be done when invited to do so.

Both tires have been replaced. The face of one rim was dented, but it didn't affect the cylinder. My driving, if anything, is more conducive to better mileage now than before the incident (approx 80 percent was city driving before, now it's more like 20). Before the incident, I could vary speeds on the highway between 75 and 85 and get 39+ mpg. Now I peg it at 75 on cruise and get closer to 33-34.

So I guess my question is, since neither mechanic has found anything obvious, has anyone else either run into this issue and found a non-obvious solution, or can someone think of something non-obvious that I could ask a mechanic to check out that might be causing it? :confuse:

kipk

>"I could vary speeds on the highway between 75 and 85 and get 39+ mpg."

That be some real good mileage for that speed Amazing mileage for those speeds.

>" Now I peg it at 75 on cruise and get closer to 33-34."

EPA Rating for Civic hyway is 29-36, depending on year, model, and transmission type. Seems to me the road speed for their test is 70.

And you are matching or bettering EPA , while driving at higher speeds. Probably on winter fuel blends.

Possibly the accident jarred your speedometer/odometer, or whatever, back into reality.

Not at all unusual for some people to better EPA, and sometimes by a good amount, with real good driving techniques. But very unusual to do it at 75-85 mph.

Seems to me like your car is a winner! :shades:

Kip

ruking1

I think you did a good job of (fault isolation) making sure the obvious and not so obvious mechanical things were systematically checked and now eliminated as the variables/culprits/ faults. With that finished, let us jump to the place we want to be. (aka what I have suspected all along)

Upshot: (this is a tad counter intuitive to your reasoning... but..) go BACK to the WAY you have been driving (but now is 80% highway). You will almost instantly increase your mpg.

That (your old way) is the WAY we (4 drivers) drive the automatic Civic. Indeed we clock 38-42 mpg in a daily commute. Road trip mpg has been as high as 42 mpg (target 75 mph, with bursts to 80-85 mph). This Civic is pushing 80,000 miles. We run 20,000 miles oil and oil filter change intervals and double the FRAM air filter interval. We rarely use cruise control.

We just experienced a 2 mpg drop, but I swag it to 2 reasons:

1. winter blend RUG
2. break in of new tires
3. (actually 2b.) much higher tread rating (320 UTOQ vs 700)

(I hate new tires from an mpg perspective) (the oem tires gave up the ghost @ 74,300 miles)

I suspect after the first 10,000 miles (oem recommended rotation interval) we will get back to the low 38 mpg figure

There are a host of reasons, but the easiest one is drive the Civic how it was designed to be driven: (aka designed and optimized in LA, CA) slightly to moderately aggressively.

Also take a look at msg #1416 to see how you fit into the survey of reported mpg statistics. I think you will find you are doing rather well in both mpg scenarios. However higher mpg is always the "brass ring" if you will. All the best and let us know what you decide to do and the results.

ruking1

... "We rarely use cruise control." ...

Actually our Civic came without CC !! @ the time it was an $1,100 (? this was 5 years ago) option requiring power door locks. $1,100 @ 2.11 for RUG will buy 521 gals. @ 38 mpg that is 19,810 miles of commuting.

So to get onto the so called "interconnectedness" of things..... Since majority of miles is COMMUTING (driver only), is it better to buy RUG (used 24/7 when running?) or CC ( WHO uses CC in a bumper to bumper commute?? ) and/or power door locks (for one person) !!??

Another upside? Hard to have CC problems with...NO cc? Hard to have POWER window issues with no power? Didn't have to pay the 8.25 % tax on the option, so 90.75 buys 43 gals of RUG or 1634 MORE miles of commuting.

krazydawg

What is RUG? My 1995 Civic comes with power windows and cruise control but I don't use the latter much. The car is rated 26 MPG by new EPA ratings and I achieve 33 MPG on average and have hit 40 4 times.

thegraduate

I think he means gas.

(Regular Unleaded Gas, I imagine).

ruking1

Correct.. PUG is premium unleaded gas, D 2 is #2 diesel.

So for example, IF you got CC under the mistaken notion that it will help you save fuel, aka get better fuel mileage, the operative question would be how many SAVED miles (under cruise control) would it take ot break even on the purchase price of CC? Now you could NOT get CC without power windows @ $1,100.... :surprise:

Now I happen to know that what you get as fuel mileage, not many people and more importantly % of folks report as good as fuel mileage as YOU or I. So actually the NON CC folks (YOU and I for example) are reporting the higher fuel MPG (savings) and they didnt speed 1,100 extra for the option !!?? aka we don't have the option!!???

temj12

If you are driving 20,000 miles between oil changes, you are headed for trouble. No engine is going to continue with that lack of service. Oil has completely broken down prior to 10,000 miles. I change mine every 5,000.

ruking1

If that is true, I have been doing that for easily over 850,000 miles on (i.e.,) 7 different engines/cars of course. Three I sold at app 60,000, 95,000, 250,000 miles (15,000 OCI's) . Another two @ 95,000, 170,000 miles (15,000-20,000 miles OCI's) , one garage queen @72,000 miles (15,000 miles OCI's). A turbo diesel @ 114,000 miles (20,000 to 25,000 OCI).The Civic as mentioned @ app 80,000 miles (20,000 miles OCI) So at what mileages shall I look for what you say to happen?

ruking1

Sorry for wandering off with the history.

So to stay on topic , Honda Civic. The Civic did need a (E) emergency brake adjustment at 79,000 miles? 9-10 clicks instead of 6-7 as per shop manual. I also had to get new tires @ 74,300 miles. I also got an alignment shortly after the new tires were installed. After app 4/4.5 years, the windshield wipers after sitting out in the environs 24/7, did need changing. They still did the wiper gig well, but a portion of the WW blades started to tear so....

ruking1

You are of course aware the oem Honda owner's manual, shop manual, web site technical data , etc recommends 10,000 miles conventional 5w20 oil (to Honda's specifications)OCI's, with 20,000 miles oil filter changes? (the 04 Civic anyway)

milwcheapguy

RUG = Reformulated Unleaded Gasoline

Basically crappy gas with ethanol used in various EPA mandated regions of the country that hurts your fuel mileage but is supposed to be better for the environment. Once again gov't logic that using more gas is better for the environment...

And before any lackeys from the EPA try and tell me that it doesn't I will call BS. My 1993 Buick Century would get 33-34 mpg using non-RUG and I was lucky to get 28-29 using RUG.

Even in my 2008 Lancer ES, I get 2-3 mpg less using RUG.

In my 2001 Suzuki Bandit 600cc 4 cyc with no electronics (where I would ride 20 miles out of my way to get non-RUG) I could get 55 mpg compared to 40 with RUG and a severe drop in performance using that crappy [non-permissible content removed] cost more RUG
:mad:

targettuning

If this is (as I think) the 10% ethanol/90% gasoline blend that is being sold now in Pa. then I concur. I have been getting 2 to 3 mpg LESS in my 1995 Dodge Stratus (for which I have been monitoring fuel economy for 4 years) under exactly the same driving conditions. The car runs as well ,or better, that it did before on 100% gas. I have no comparisons on emissions.

kipk

>"I have been getting 2 to 3 mpg LESS in my 1995 Dodge Stratus (for which I have been monitoring fuel economy for 4 years) under exactly the same driving conditions."

Interesting that the 10% Ethanol Blend seems to result somewhere in the 10% range reduction in mileage, according to posts on these forums.

It is supposed to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce emissions. .

Real world seems to indicate, that to drive a given distance, we still use the same amount of "Dino" fuel plus the ethanol.

Example: A car averaging 30 mpg on straight Dino fuel would use 10 gallons to go 300 miles.

If the mileage is reduced 10% with ethanol blend, the car would drop to 27 mpg.
The 300 miles would require 11.11 gallons of the blended fuel.

90% of that 11.11 gallons of blend, or 9.9999 gallons, is dino. Therefore 10 gallons of dino is still required to go the 300 miles. And we bought 1.11 extra gallons of "Blend". That does absolutely nothing to help emissions or reduce dependence on oil. Still used 10 gallons of Dino with it's emissions, Plus the emissions from the Ethanol. Actually to manufacture the ethanol has consequences of it's own when we consider the fuel required to plant and harvest the crops. Fuel required to haul the crop to the refinery, and more fuel to process the crop into ethanol. The refining process also uses about 10 gallons (or more) of water for every 1 gallon of finished product. Plus the possible necessity to irrigate the crops to grow. Then more energy is used to "Blend" the ethanol to the dino. All the extra energy required for producing the ethanol creates it's own emissions.

While it is true that a gallon of 100% Ethanol produces less emissions than a gallon of dino, the Ethanol contains much less energy and requires more of it to go the distance. Therefore the emissions from the tail pipe are near the same for the same distance traveled. We just get to pay for a lot more of it.

The public is being fed a load of crap concerning ethanol.

Kip

steve190

Just ran my first tank thru my new 2009 Civic Coupe EX with 5 speed and got 31.1 MPG. This was about 70% city and 30% highway. I was driving normally not to aggresive until I get the car broke in, but thought 31.1 was not too bad for the first tank. Will update after a few thousand miles on the car.

thegraduate

Sounds good. You're beating EPA estimates.

ruking1

For the first 10,000 miles there is really a lot going on. So for example after the tire break in period (0 to 500 miles), brake pad bed in procedures and suspension break ins, I would start to drive the car through the gears to app 75% of redline RPMS and decelerate. In addition do not drive the car at stead RPMS for long highway stretches. All the best.

steve190

Thanks ruking1, I have taken your advise and have starting driving the car a little more aggresive and letting the car decelerate as you stated. The car feels like it has more power driving it like this (maybe just because I think so) will wait till I get a few thousand miles on it and start checking the mileage to see what I am getting. The window sticker reads 34 on the highway, but I hope to do little then that. What do you think out there? I had a 1998 Civic and could get 40 on the highway no problem. Thanks all!

thegraduate

I think the 1998 Civic was a lot less powerful (106hp vs. 140hp) and weighed a good deal less, but the more relaxed highway gearing will help out the current Civic in the flat highways!

steve190

Yeah I guess you are correct about the H.P. and weight but I was thinking bigger motor maybe turning less RPM's and coming out with at least 36-38 MPG. When on the highway I normally put the cruise on about 68 and relax. I was just wondering what everyone else was getting for MPG ballpark? know everyone drives different, has more weight in the car etc, but does anyone get 40 or near it on the highway? My EX is a 5 speed manual, to compare apples to apples.

thegraduate

I drove my dad's 2007 Civic EX Automatic from Gulf Shores, AL to Birmingham when evacuating his car from Hurricane Gustav last year. He stayed behind in a company vehicle.

We stayed around 70 MPH (we were a convoy of 3 cars), with the cruise control set. I got 37 MPG, while my 2006 Accord (2.4L I4, Automatic) got 35 MPG while being driven by my girlfriend. It's amazing (the Accord) on the highway, but the Civic beats it by a good 5 MPG around town.

kltron

Can you do 40mpg on the highway? Last summer I was doing 41-42mpg regularly (2008 EX 5 speed manual).

My car fuel log is out on ecomodder.com ("CuteNiceButNotTheSame"), and the *current* totals are:

* Fuel economy - lifetime: 39.17 mpg (US)
* Fuel economy - last 3 fills: 38.6 mpg (US)
* Fuel economy - 90 days: 37.11 mpg (US)

In about the past week or two my ScanGaugeII has shown 40+ for various trips (tonight's highway ride 35 miles showed 41.1mpg--I've seen 44mpg recently on a similar trip). I do basic hypermiling techniques and rarely use cruise control. I don't have a lot of junk in the trunk and lost 60 lbs. out of my own junky trunk a few years back. :-)

Over the winter the mileage plummeted down to around 36-38, though. The mileage has improved into the 39mpg range recently, possibly due to the warmer weather, and maybe they've changed the gas over to summer formulation (don't know). I expect it to get back into the 41mpg range again (mostly highway). It will be interesting to see if it does more now that it has 19,000 miles on it, but I'll settle for 40+. :-)

...kl...

ruking1

The range for a daily commute has been at 38-42 mpg. Today we had a fill for 41.25 mpg. So while that falls within range, SOS/DD.

Some unaccounted for variables: 1. the 80,000 miles maintenance interval was done (late) , to include, 2. OCI @22,000 miles, a. Mobil One 0w20 b. oil filter change to a WalMart SuperTech. 3. tire rotation.

wiredpair

I currently have an '07 Ford Fusion SEL V6 with 55k on the odometer. My commute is 75 miles each way, about 80%-85% highway driving - I drive about 25k per year. I get around 28 MPG driving 60 MPH with cruise set on the highway.

I am thinking of downsizing to a Civic. There is a certified-pre-owned '08 Sedan EX-L automatic for sale nearby with 13k on the clock. Will this car get 40 MPG with my type of driving? Will a manual transmission do any better?

Thanks,
Eric

ruking1

The short answer is a question: does the "potential fuel savings of $ 44.06 per month/$ 528.75 per year EXCEED the new payments (costs) of the 08 Civic?

Actually would need some more information as the mileage you state seems to indicate an average of 3.47 days per week. Another would be, what if you personally are not able to GET 40 mpg (without some change/s in driving behavior and/or sacrifice)

thegraduate

The short answer to your questions, assuming you are driving in relatively flat ground, is that yes, the Civic should be capable of around 40 MPG strictly highway, at 60mph. A manual will probably do slightly worse due to the shorter 5th gear as oppsed to the automatic (it runs a few hundred RPM higher than the auto at 60 MPH).

You're taking a big downsize in power, quietness, and comfort to get that though. The Fusion is a very nice vehicle.

wiredpair

Yeah, I am hesitant to make a switch because I do love my car. I am at the point where I need to decide whether to sell or keep forever. I figured I'd downsize if I was to sell.

I just figured I'd get some feedback before I decide.

Thanks,
Eric

thegraduate

I just drove the two back to back yesterday when car shopping with my GF('07 Fusion SE I4 Auto and Civic EX), and the Fusion is by far the car I'd rather live with daily, especially if it is closer to being paid off!

I'm a Honda guy... got three Accords in the driveway, and my folks have an 07 Civic EX and like it a lot - they have nearly 70k miles on it.

Have you driven the Civic yet?

wiredpair

I test drove an '07 hybrid model about 6 months after I bought my car thinking it would be a good fit. My Fusion only had 11k on it at the time and the dealer really low balled the trade so I didn't bite.

I am one of those people that get bored after two years and want something else. I should not complain, the Fusion has not given me one ounce of trouble (knock on wood) and is really a great car - beats the '96 Accord I had by a mile.

Daily operating cost was my concern as is the fact the my wife has an '03 Odyssey with similar mileage and I don't want to replace both at one time.

Eric

thegraduate

I would think harder about replacing the 6 year old car before the 2-3 year old one. Right now, (assuming you still want/need one) you can get great deals on minivans. Better deals than Civics, anyway! :shades:

steve190

Thanks for the information, sounds like you do a lot of the same things I do to save gas. I will have to see as I put more miles on the car how it does, but my goal is to get 40 MPG on the highway. I went from a Toyota Yaris that was getting 42-43 on the highway and about 38 around town to the Civic. I know you can not compare the two but it was nice getting that kind of mileage. Enjoy your Honda!!

steve190

Yeah, you can get good deals on a minivan but who wants to drive one? You can get good deals on Honda Civic's if you shop around. I bought mine a month ago and got them to knock off over 2300 dollars! Do your homework and play each dealer off one another and you will be surprized. I bought mine at Keeler Honda in Latham NY if you are in the area. Good luck!!

ruking1

I am thinking you tend to make emotional decisions when it comes to cars, as you did not answer my $ per month question a while back.

So if you tend to get bored, I would as a min, just stay with the Fusion, as it has a 6 cyl vs 4 cyl Honda Civic which you are considering. In addition, Civic's are not anywhere near Accord's. Just from those perspectives, going from a 6 cyl can be seen as a HUGE let down in more than one issue, i.e., the Civic by your own admission (& my swag) would come in a distant 3rd place. In addtion, the Fusion seems to be fulfilling your expectations.

If it is just the "new car smell" a trip to the detailer for "the works" will be far cheaper !! Just keep going back when the smell wears off or needs to be renewed.

Here are a number of reasons why we are very pleased with the Honda Civic (04)

1. We ID'd it as a vehicle maximized for the application we needed it and secondarily wanted for (LA LA Land type commute
2. According to a larger survey (msg #1416) we are logging a range of 38-42 in the 54 miles R/T commute. Basically, up to 97/100 report lower fuel mileage
3. We are "killing two birds with one stone" so to speak in that the mileage is requirement is actually 29,000 it remains @14,xxx miles. So this saves a huge expenditure for another car and the additional miles
4. vehicle was purchased way below invoice and actually I have come to find out, below dealer's cost
5. resale value remains very high.

However there are compromises. The car we substituted the Civic was getting 48-52 mpg for the same commute. Tired of shifting was the stated excuse.

wiredpair

I was considering replacing the Odyssey but my 3 kids are kind of rough on it and I'd rather let myself enjoy a newer set of wheels instead of them destroying it.

The dealers here are willing to cut about 16% off MSRP for an Odyssey EX-L RES without even sitting down so I could replace my Ody with a better model.

wiredpair

My apologies for not answering all the questions - I may have missed your post. I own my car outright and with a trade-in, would be able to pay the difference in cash for the vehicle. It would take a considerable amount of time to recoup the additional outlay of cash with fuel savings however.

Yes, I tend to make emotional decisions on vehicle purchases. I've had a license for 17 years and I believe I've owned 14 cars (this is my first new one though) so I don't keep them long. I just get bored but decided against leasing due to the amount of mileage I drive.

My thought was that I would be making a good move to downsize in the event fuel costs increase and I could save $500-$1,000 per year. It would still take 5-6 years at $4 per gallon to recoup the out of pocket costs for the newer car. On the flip side, I'd own a one year old car with 13k and warranty to 100k instead of a two year old car with 55k that is out of warranty.

ruking1

The question was asked on the first post after you asked the question. Your answer would be important to focus on the economic points, as you seemed to be asking economic questions.

Since you seem to go through a lot of cars, really the easiest way to compare cars (sometimes the comparisons are apples to oranges to pears) is to compare cost per mile driven. When you can see the numbers (projected, historic, actual, etc) you can use it as a better basis for comparison between a 4 cyl vs 6 cyl, etc, etc.

kltron

Thought I'd give a quick update to the forum...

On April 10:
* Fuel economy - lifetime: 39.17 mpg (US)
* Fuel economy - last 3 fills: 38.6 mpg (US)
* Fuel economy - 90 days: 37.11 mpg (US

Now (June 8):
* Fuel economy - lifetime: 39.59 mpg (US)
* Fuel economy - last 3 fills: 44.32 mpg (US)
* Fuel economy - 90 days: 40.61 mpg (US)

This includes tonight's 46.45mpg tank that was a long drive with the car full of stuff (380 miles, mostly highway...plus one work commute (mostly highway)). I'm doubting it was 46+mpg and will say that part of it is from using a different gas station, but call it 44 or 45, which is still decent. Driving there was 43.18mpg---still respectable.

...kl...

targettuning

decent?.....respectable? are hardly terms I'd use for fuel economy in the lower to middle 40's especially in a non-hybrid vehicle. Call it what it is....fabulous!!! We own a 2006 EX automatic sedan equipped with a ScanGage and our most recent trip of about 40 miles on I-81 registered 42.6 mpg on it (the ScanGage). I originally refused to believe such claims BEFORE the ScanGage but now see it is possible.

bearcrkrd

I've topped out at 45mpg. That was for a couple hundred miles, over two mountain passes. Granted, I went slow (35-50) to watch the scenery, it was warm out, which seems to help, and I had filled up with Premium. Still, I have averaged somewhere close to 35 mpg in the 12 1/2 Months/29,000 miles since new. I kept track of every tank until a couple Months ago. It gets lower in the Winter, 30-33 average including stop and go. If I go on a freeway trip in the Winter it picks right back up, just not quite as high as Summer mileage. The gas mileage in this car ('08 LX Auto) is just plain fantanstic!

targettuning

Do your wallet a favor and skip the premium. With very few exceptions (and those exceptions are mostly high performance cars i.e. Corvette, Viper, Dodge Hemi powered variants etc.) all modern cars/trucks/suv's require only regular fuel and using anything higher in octane is a total waste of money. There is NO gain in fuel economy, performance or any other measurable perameter. I guess I will hear from those who swear the economy is better with premium but the increase in octane is there to prevent pre-detonation in higher compression engines...and even then the engine will just dial back timing and regular will usually work fine in a Corvette too with a small decrease in performance. Modern engines do not knock, ping or do anything else bad like that UNLESS there is a mechanical problem or the knock sensor, or related electronic monitoring is faulty. "Knocks wood" but I haven't heard a ping or knock or clatter from our 226,200 mile 1995 Dodge Stratus V-6 in...well, ever! That folks is just one reason why modern engines are 10 thousand % better than anything ever made in the 50's-60's-70's -80's.