Yes, your post is confirmation that it is probably best to drive, at worst in the design parameters of the system and best to drive within the "sweet spot". Of course, whether folks realize it or not, goals are being fulfilled. So to me it is a matter of knowing what those are and making the choices that gets you there. Measurements such as "Honda Civic Real World Mpg Numbers" are the "tells" so to speak.
So using your example, the torque DOES tend to come on at higher revs.
Worst case: you really do not want to lug a Honda engine). Does it NEED to be taken to within a hairs thickness of max revs? NO!
On the Civic anyway, the neat thing is there is not too much difference in epa mpg between the automatic and manual. So for example on MY automatic during commute, I do not fight the automatic's shifting tendencies at given throttle inputs. This can be a tad to VERY annoying, if one is used to manual tramsmissions.
For some strange reason this dealership has that policy, all brand new cars leave with a full tank. I filled up the tank again. 11.1 Gallons. I will keep track of the mileage with this tank.
I also have a Honda Pilot 2003, I was too careless and did not keep track of mileage.
I do not know what gas the dealer put on the car the fist time. This time I put regular(87), but reading the manual says I need 93 octane rated gasoline. Next time I will fill it up with premium gas, maybe that's the reason.
My 2007 Civic EX is getting poorer mileage with each tank. Just put in tank #5 and mileage was 24.5. I have a 2002 CRV that gets that mileage. I drive 3 miles to work each day. I am not an aggressive driver, coast to traffic lights when possible and slow on the take off. What am I doing wrong?
"What am I doing wrong?" Well...in a nutshell nothing!!! Maybe with the possible exception of believing you will get that 30 mpg city the EPA sticker promotes in giant bold numbers. We have a 2006 EX auto sedan and my wifes'similar commute to work in our smallish city yields almost identical mileage...between 24-25mpg especially in cold weather. After a little more than a year of ownership it remains about the same with a bit more in warmer weather.
Nothing - Honda has BS the public to think they produce the most fuel efficient cars?? As you can see, it's all BS. They tell you 30 - 40 mpg and we are getting 25 :mad: The civic weighs approx 2800lbs and has 140 hp vs the Lexus IS250 which weighs 3600 lbs and has 204 hp. The Lexus gets the same mpg 25. Honda is BSing the public and we went for it. It's ok to be off 2- 4 mpg but when you are off 10 - 15 mpg theres a problem. :confuse:
I also would agree you are doing NOTHING wrong: to GET 24.5 mpg!?
So for example on the new car sticker, for the 2004 Honda Civic, the EPA BOLD numbers are: "29 City/38 Highway". Again if one reads the "finer" print it goes on to say ACTUAL MILEAGE ... will achieve between 24 AND ...34 mpg in the city... 32 AND 44 mpg on the highway"...
Given some of the above quoted new car sticker, it would be hard to come to the conclusion that it is "B/S". Further as a comparison, it would be interesting for example to see what a GM product such as a Suburban/Tahoe etc etc would get under similar conditions.
While you do not consider yourself an "aggressive" driver, the conditions you drive ARE indeed highly aggressive/severe (use whatever words); as far as the machineries' point of view. Without knowing more of your conditions, 3 miles one way would as a minimum indicate incomplete combustion; as a min of 5/7 days or 71% of your weekly miles. Another is none of your fluids comes up to optimum operating temperature. Start up wear is intense.
Given some of the situations that come to mind, perhaps the other way to look at it: it is way cool that you even get 24.5 mpg.
I think too many people have forgotten that Honda doesn't decide the numbers that go on the sticker, the Environmental Protection Agency does.
As for my family's 2007 Auto Civic(my dad's car), he drives fairly aggressively, commutes in rush hour to downtown, and averages about 31 MPG. Seems about right given that he is in stop and go City traffic for a large part of that.
In my 2.4L 5AT Accord, I average 28-29 MPG with a non-rush hour suburban commute, and mid-upper 30s to sometimes 40 MPG on trips.
I'm beginning to wonder about the numbers on Honda too... the 24/34 on my Accord's sticker seems much too low.
This time I put regular(87), but reading the manual says I need 93 octane rated gasoline. Next time I will fill it up with premium gas, maybe that's the reason.
You are talking about the 1.8L, 140 hp Civic, right? It does NOT need 93 Octane Premium Gasoline. 87 will do the same job that 93 will, which is what your manual should state. Mind telling me what page of the manual you read that says you "need 93 Octane?" I'm not trying to pick on you, but if you can show me the page number where it says that in your Honda Civic Owner's Manual supplied by the manufacturer, I'll eat my hat. I think you are mistaken; do NOT put 93 Octane in your Civic unless you have some cash you need to get rid of.
For some strange reason this dealership has that policy, all brand new cars leave with a full tank.
Most dealerships these days have that policy, but it is easy to get the car to read full and save a few dollars by not filling it to full in actuality (the gauge will read full if within a gallon or two depending on the vehicle). I don't know this to be the case for you this time, but it happens.
I don't know...it seems there is always someone who claims they significantly better the EPA numbers, I don't!! As I said we live in a smallish city with virtually no "rush hour". My wife can go directly to her work place (around 3 miles one way) with no stops other than one stop sign and one traffic signal. She also sometimes goes grocery shopping or the local WalMart during the day but neither get her into any gridlock at all. Traffic is always relatively free-flowing. I would say she may put between 20-25 miles per day on the car all "in town" Her speeds probably never exceed 50 mph and average about 30. Under those conditions we have always achieved that 24-25 mpg..never much better. Slightly higher in the summer (25-25.5 mpg) and slightly lower (23-24mpg) in the winter but not 30 or even close. Trips on the other hand have yielded 37.7 as a best. We do nothing abnornal in any case so I maintain the 24 or so the other fellow gets is about right for in town driving.
Another reason why DIESEL Honda's (specific DIESEL models coming to the US markets) will literally blow away some of the heretofore GREAT fuel mpg figures. I already live with Honda Civic EPA 29/38 REAL World mpg of 38-42 and in a diesel VW TDI WPA 42/49(same commute) of 48-52.
So to others, as good as 25 mpg is, 30-35 mpg would be better or worse!?
I think the key to the low mileage is the 3 miles. The engine never has time to warm up. The coolant temp might get to the normal range, but the other fluids such as oil, grease and tranny fluid probably aren't real warm yet. This yeilds higher fiction. Colder temps (air and engine) also make the engine run richer. Giving you worst possible results.
PS: our Tahoe gets 13 in city during the winter (Minnesota) and 15 city in the summer. Highway trips its around 19.
I'm afraid I overlooked the "3-mile commute" part. Therein lies you answer to such low mileage. With your trip mileage being acceptable, I'd say you do pretty well with your mileage. 3-miles is barely enough to get your car into normal operating temperature - when it is below it, your car uses more fuel (running rich) to warm the engine up. That's the reason a cold car idles higher (say 1,200 RPM on cold mornings in my 1996) vs. a warmed-up car (around 700 RPM)... the car is feeding more fuel into the engine to warm it up.
EDIT: I just saw jay24's response, so sorry for the redundancy.
Oh sure, a diesel blows most everything else away with regard to fuel economy. In addition many MODERN diesel cars (trucks too) are quite fast/quick to boot and reasonably quiet. I am a diesel fan and wish this country (U.S.of A.) would get with the program because I am ready to buy a torquey diesel V-6 in lieu of most gas V-6's.
While I tend to agree the 3 mile drive hardly warms things up what difference would, say, a 25 mile commute make if it was severely stop..creep...stop driving where most/much of the commute was at 0 (zero) mpg while being stopped? I guess I can't see how a longer but more congested drive would improve things in any way. How would I be able to generate the much better numbers (30 mpg for instance) if I were stopped much of the time and at 5-15 mph the rest? I suppose it isn't always totally stopped but you get the picture..while I don't live in a big city I have absolutely experienced this type of early morning-late afternoon driving in more than one large city ( Washington D.C. Dallas and Richmond Va. and others).
Again a good question, I can give you the figures for a range of average 30 mph to 36 mph, 27 mile one way commute or 45 min to 1.5 hour commute, but then again you have already gone on record as considering that highly suspect. So not to be rudundant, as the questions and scenario you described is/are NOT. 38-42 mpg. In a DIESEL 48-52 mpg.
Well, I believe the EPA standards for "City" driving is such that the average speed is 20 MPH, with no A/C being used. You can bet that they don't figure a 3,500 RPM run up to each red light into that equation, either. I see people drive like this all over the place, accelerating to stop signs/red lights. They always lead the pack when the light turns green, only for all of us "slowpokes" to be right back behind/beside them at the next red light.
isn't this surprising! i am quite surprised that u guyz are getting this awful mpg numbers! i drive around 40 miles (per way) everyday to downtown chicago on about speeds of about 60-80 mph and i get about 35-37 mpg even with all the electronics on (radio or cd, HEATER or AC etc.)!... surprisingly!
Agree. Some of the mileage #s posted here are unreasonably high. The EPA highway mpg test is done at a average of 48 mph. If you are going appreciably faster you are not going to get that much. Unfortunately, claiming too high a mileage # is making some people think their car is defective.
..."Some of the mileage #s posted here are unreasonably high. The EPA highway mpg test is done at a average of 48 mph. If you are going appreciably faster you are not going to get that much. Unfortunately, claiming too high a mileage # is making some people think their car is defective"...
Then that would be an intentional or unintentional misreading or misunderstanding on what is says on each's new car sticker.
..."The 2008 vehicles aren't any less fuel-efficient than 2007 models - actual fuel economy has been stable for the past decade at around 21 miles per gallon."...
Well first and foremost you apparently have a long highway run of about 80 miles at highway speeds BEFORE you enter stop-go-stop inter city driving and this kicks your average up. When in fact during our short "commute" we never get on any free flowing highway and certainly never exceed about 45-50 mph and only for a short period at that. So,your mileage is closer to the 37.7 I got on a highway trip because in your case it IS more highway trip than inner city gridlock.
I have been thinking about the warm up time with regard to fuel economy and I believe it doesn't make that much difference any more. Why do I say that? Well, I believe that theory came about when carbs. were the only fuel delivery system we had (and they were crude enough to dump raw fuel into the cylinders) AND I am old enough to remember the choke. Whether an automatic or manual choke the car had no choice but to run extra..extra rich when cold for an extended amount of time. This was about as inefficient as could be and it was nothing to see cars spewing black smoke indicating an over-rich condition. While now such over-rich conditions would send the EPA into a convulsion not to mention destroying the cat. converter instantly. So, now the car does run rich briefly, very briefly and it is all tightly controlled via the engine management computer and feed-back loops from multiple oxygen sensors. I no longer believe a car run a short time (over a couple of miles)gets significantly poorer fuel economy...more wear maybe..more oil dilution certainly. Oh, and lets not forget modern cars warm very quickly, I have seen full readings (and heater heat too) on the temperature gage in less than a mile. This was in a rented 2007 Malibu. My old 96 Stratus takes maybe three times that (3-4 miles) to put out any appreciable heat or register somethin off dead cold on the gage.
"The EPA highway mpg test is done at a average of 48 mph. If you are going appreciably faster you are not going to get that much."
Not true - it is easy to exceed EPA numbers. The EPA subtracts 22% from the highway fuel economy measurement to get the number they put on the sticker. To get the actual measured number multiply by 1.28.
Honda Civic 40 mpg highway x 1.28 = 51.2 mpg. That is what you can expect if you drive a fully warmed up vehicle at a more or less steady 48 mph. Consumer reports does the only real world repeatable mpg tests and they get 43 mpg on the highway (steady 65mph with a warmed up engine) for the Civic. - pretty much in line with the EPA numbers.
It makes a HUGE difference over time and mileage. Perhaps this is ONE of the reasons why the mpg difference is so different say between yours and mine. Put some numbers to your idling and we can easily do per: day, week, month, year, comparisons. If you can find the per hour at idle fuel consumption figure. Another thing I do is if I have to idle for longer than 30 sec, I am looking to shut the vehicle off. Keep in mind that idling consumes fuel with ZERO 0 mpg.
..."For every two minutes a car is idling, it uses about the same amount of fuel it takes to go about one mile"...
So working backwards if one gets 25 mpg that is 1/25=4% x 128 oz= 5.12 oz per minute. So now the question is how many minutes do you idle per: day, week, month, year,?
No, we do little idling except perhaps when there is heavy frost on the glass. I used to be a advocate of a long idle time before drive off (another throw back to ancient technology [carbs.] when the car wouldn't run well or at all unless warmed)but now pretty much drive conservatively after maybe 45 seconds idle time. Actually my point is that we do NO gridlock driving in our circumstance so any long idle periods either deliberately or involuntary due to traffic situations do not happen. Our "commute" is as free and clear as one could hope for. Short and sweet!! I have come to believe that 25 mpg or so is just what they get when not on the road going a constant 65 mph... Before anyone accuses me of complaining I am fairly happy with 25 because our previous SUV got about 15 +/- on the same "commute".
Correction: that is 5.12 oz per 2 minutes. Or 2.56 oz per min.
Well for sure it is good that you are happy. But germane to the mpg discussion, I think we have reasonably shown that "short and sweet" commutes are harder on the vehicle than so called "longer" commutes. To use two figures 25 vs 38 mpg, for like miles, it is 34% HARDER on the machinery.
Yeah it WOULD be easy to exceed EPA numbers if you would drive at...YIKES 48 mph. I am here to tell you that driving at even 65 (48 mph constitutes a serious death wish)on almost any turnpike or interstate in the USA would not only get you good mileage but a nice funeral too!! Even driving at my normal 72 mph in the right lane frequently has my rear view mirror filled with a Peterbuilt grille..and honest to God I sometimes wonder if that truck will be able to swing left in time to pass me. No thank you I'll take whatever mileage I get at 72-75 mph!!
I am not fully ready to concede that it is true that short commutes are necessarily harder on a vehicle than a long one. It would require long term studies to determine how well each vehicle would fare (mechanically speaking) after say 100K miles of each. If any failures that could be attributed to short drives did show up I bet it would be long after I got rid of the car. Also, keep in mind that while the short drive is common for us on a daily basis it isn't the only type driving we do. Additionally,we do drive moderate to long distances interspaced with the daily commutes. On those I get low to mid 30's. Finally, I do not see how the two figures you quote...25 verses 38 mpg determine that the person who gets 25 mpg is 34% harder on his or her car. I still believe 25 mpg or so is "what it is" for daily non-sustained highway use. All bets are off however if your particular commute involves 40-50-or more highway miles before you even get to your city "gridlock". Obviously, that sustained high speed driving boosts your average no matter what else happens after you enter the inner city.
ahhhh! i see what u saying... yeah i agree, i have a honda accord and it does the same thing (my wife drives it in the city). she gets no more than 24 mpg. i also own a toyota camry hybrid and i sometimes drive it to my work too, on the highway, and it gets about 40 mpg. but if i get traffic, i only get about 38 mpg with the engine shutting down completely when i am stuck in the traffic with driving about 20 mph. but with the civic, it doesn't really affect its fuel economy, even if i am stuck in the traffic!
"Yeah it WOULD be easy to exceed EPA numbers if you would drive at...YIKES 48 mph"
Who would ever do that? Not my reccomendation. I was stating the measurements including mpg at 65 which was also well over the EPA numbers. Not everybody drives on turnpikes or interstates all the time. There are actually some roads with 55 mph speed limits, where 65 is not at all dangerous. The point is comparing apples to apples. If somebody complains about poor fuel mileage, but drive too fast, at different speeds, and for short distances the reason is obfvious.
One real easy way to tell how smoothly (and efficiently) somebody drives is how long their brakes last. Less braking is more efficient. The front pads on my Integra lasted 180,000 miles. Why slam on the brakes at a stop light when you can coast.
As far as higher speed MPG goes for Hondas. The speed limit is 75 where I live and my Integra (stick shift) gets 32 mpg going 80. This is with an EPA highway of 28. I can't drive fast enough to only get 28 mpg.
Congrads., you may have the record for brake pad longevity. But brake pad life is more an indication of individual driving conditions e.g. those living in the mid-west with its flat as a pancake terrain should not have to brake as much or as hard as one living in the mountains or someone who lives in a rural area should not have to brake as often as one who lives in an inner-city or metro area. I concur however that timing at lights can minimize excessive braking. The downside of a marathon brake longevity contest may involve safety sometimes though. Thought process="gee I really ought to brake for this situation but lets see if I can get by without it...I am not saying you do this but sometimes shooting for a record consciously or not changes your perception and if not braking "one more time" adds another 1000 miles well. You may not be shooting for any record but obviously you abhor using brakes, right??
WRONG! You can't just multiply the 48mph #s by anything! You and others are forgetting the major limiting factor in speed and mpg is WIND RESISTANCE! Wind resistance increases exponentially with speed and limits both speed and mpg. You could look it up! So don't give these ignorant #s and expect me to believe them.
I'm not so sure I buy into your formula ruking1. Using 25 mpg doesn't make sense when a car idles at 650-750 rpm, with no strain on the engine. When you're driving, the rpm's are way higher than at idle, not to mention the load on the motor. Yes, idling wastes gas, but I don't think as much as you seem to claim.
I am confused by your post, unless you are saying 25 mpg= 38 mpg, which clearly through others posts you are not.
Another point of triangulation is the OLM's. I can almost guarantee you that with identical Civic's (with OLM's) that the Civic with 38 mpg will go longer between OLM directed oil changes than the Civic which gets 25 mpg.
I am confused by YOUR post. Again the 24.5 mpg is reported by someone else and many others on this thread. I report 38-42 mpg. It is not rocket science to swag that the folks getting 24.5 are probably idling more than someone getting 38-42 mpg. (among as I said at least 14 cited factors) The idle figures are published and available on the net, but for sure it is arcane to most folks. Upshot is it is not as no strain and gas sipping as you think.
tom...Next time you get tires get the goodyear assurance comfort treads. They are very smooth,quiet,and soft riding. They may reduce your mpg 1-2 mpg. They really smoothed the ride on my 02 accord v6. Hope this helps.
You are much more impressed with your driving skills than others. Tom was willing to sacrifice some mileage for comfort. Besides,that's not your concern.
Impressed with driving skills? The bad/good news is how a car is driven is one major factor on the mpg. So given identical factors, a lot of this topic is really between the headsets so to speak.
The other way to look at this: when folks need advice on how to get 25 mpg, when 38-42 will do; folks that actually GET 25 mpg are THE resource.
Honda diesels would be a hit! While I would expect app 38-42 in the Honda Civic, I did a 261 mile R/T (mostly highway, San Jose to Davis, CA, GO AGGIES) with a Jetta TDI. I kept it under 85 mph. Most folks who do this route will know that in spots, 85 mpg is seriously below the average passenger vehicle fleet traffic flow. My stints in the passing lane (#1) happens when inevitably, fully loaded tractor 2 trailers try to pass fully loaded tractor 2 trailers. Filled the tank back up with 5 gals (was going to repeat the trip some days later) for 52 mpg.
It will be interesting to see what the diesel that hits the USA will do in either a Civic or more likely Accord platform.
Had to do some stop and go during rush hour on the streets of San Francisco, after entering Frisco in FULL rush hour traffic on a FRIDAY night. I had to look for several parking spaces in several different districts for app 30 mins of stop and go circling time. It is hard to get good fuel mileage when every block/intersection has a stop sign or signal!?
Pedestrians walk around like they are either drunk, oblivious, blind, don't care or all of the above
I too am confused by whatever 25 mpg =38 mpg means. I am lost on whatever you meant when you originally posted this comparison. It wasn't an original thought of mine (I don't think). I see however that you appear to reside on the west coast and while it is temporarily chilly there now that isn't the norm. So a warm-up for you is irrevelant, me? I live in the snowbelt so some warm-up is normal if only to remove the heavy frost/ice on the windows. But that we get about 25+/- mpg isn't season limited since this is about it even in the summer. I can only surmise that either you are somehow misinterpreting your actual fuel economy or you have quite a lot of highway driving before entering the inner-city because I can assure you there ain't no way to get middle 30's in inner city driving alone.
Comments
So using your example, the torque DOES tend to come on at higher revs.
Worst case: you really do not want to lug a Honda engine). Does it NEED to be taken to within a hairs thickness of max revs? NO!
On the Civic anyway, the neat thing is there is not too much difference in epa mpg between the automatic and manual. So for example on MY automatic during commute, I do not fight the automatic's shifting tendencies at given throttle inputs. This can be a tad to VERY annoying, if one is used to manual tramsmissions.
I also have a Honda Pilot 2003, I was too careless and did not keep track of mileage.
I do not know what gas the dealer put on the car the fist time. This time I put regular(87), but reading the manual says I need 93 octane rated gasoline. Next time I will fill it up with premium gas, maybe that's the reason.
Thanks.
So for example on the new car sticker, for the 2004 Honda Civic, the EPA BOLD numbers are: "29 City/38 Highway". Again if one reads the "finer" print it goes on to say ACTUAL MILEAGE ... will achieve between 24 AND ...34 mpg in the city... 32 AND 44 mpg on the highway"...
Given some of the above quoted new car sticker, it would be hard to come to the conclusion that it is "B/S". Further as a comparison, it would be interesting for example to see what a GM product such as a Suburban/Tahoe etc etc would get under similar conditions.
While you do not consider yourself an "aggressive" driver, the conditions you drive ARE indeed highly aggressive/severe (use whatever words); as far as the machineries' point of view. Without knowing more of your conditions, 3 miles one way would as a minimum indicate incomplete combustion; as a min of 5/7 days or 71% of your weekly miles. Another is none of your fluids comes up to optimum operating temperature. Start up wear is intense.
Given some of the situations that come to mind, perhaps the other way to look at it: it is way cool that you even get 24.5 mpg.
Remember this is only your second tank of gas. If you are still getting low mileage after 2k-3k miles, then you should be concerned.
As for my family's 2007 Auto Civic(my dad's car), he drives fairly aggressively, commutes in rush hour to downtown, and averages about 31 MPG. Seems about right given that he is in stop and go City traffic for a large part of that.
In my 2.4L 5AT Accord, I average 28-29 MPG with a non-rush hour suburban commute, and mid-upper 30s to sometimes 40 MPG on trips.
I'm beginning to wonder about the numbers on Honda too... the 24/34 on my Accord's sticker seems much too low.
You are talking about the 1.8L, 140 hp Civic, right? It does NOT need 93 Octane Premium Gasoline. 87 will do the same job that 93 will, which is what your manual should state. Mind telling me what page of the manual you read that says you "need 93 Octane?" I'm not trying to pick on you, but if you can show me the page number where it says that in your Honda Civic Owner's Manual supplied by the manufacturer, I'll eat my hat. I think you are mistaken; do NOT put 93 Octane in your Civic unless you have some cash you need to get rid of.
Most dealerships these days have that policy, but it is easy to get the car to read full and save a few dollars by not filling it to full in actuality (the gauge will read full if within a gallon or two depending on the vehicle). I don't know this to be the case for you this time, but it happens.
So to others, as good as 25 mpg is, 30-35 mpg would be better or worse!?
PS: our Tahoe gets 13 in city during the winter (Minnesota) and 15 city in the summer. Highway trips its around 19.
EDIT: I just saw jay24's response, so sorry for the redundancy.
1. highway conditions
2. steady 55-65 mph
3. a minimum drive of 1 hour's duration (all systems full operating temperature, engine can burn off a core amount of byproducts)
4. litte to no, start up and stop; start up and stop
5. no A/C
6. little to no battery demand, such as: NO lights, sound system, aux battery draws
7. little to no idling
8. little to no brake use
9. good tire balance and alignment
10. "correct" and proper tire PSI
11. ideal driving and ambient weather conditions
12. as little weight in the vehicle as possible
13. no dingle berries such as Tule/Yakima roof racks, etc hanging off the air stream.
14. etc, etc, etc.
Then that would be an intentional or unintentional misreading or misunderstanding on what is says on each's new car sticker.
What Has Changed
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center-article_153/
Not true - it is easy to exceed EPA numbers. The EPA subtracts 22% from the highway fuel economy measurement to get the number they put on the sticker. To get the actual measured number multiply by 1.28.
Honda Civic 40 mpg highway x 1.28 = 51.2 mpg. That is what you can expect if you drive a fully warmed up vehicle at a more or less steady 48 mph. Consumer reports does the only real world repeatable mpg tests and they get 43 mpg on the highway (steady 65mph with a warmed up engine) for the Civic. - pretty much in line with the EPA numbers.
..."For every two minutes a car is idling, it uses about the same amount of fuel it takes to go about one mile"...
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/idling.html
So working backwards if one gets 25 mpg that is 1/25=4% x 128 oz= 5.12 oz per minute. So now the question is how many minutes do you idle per: day, week, month, year,?
Before anyone accuses me of complaining I am fairly happy with 25 because our previous SUV got about 15 +/- on the same "commute".
Well for sure it is good that you are happy. But germane to the mpg discussion, I think we have reasonably shown that "short and sweet" commutes are harder on the vehicle than so called "longer" commutes. To use two figures 25 vs 38 mpg, for like miles, it is 34% HARDER on the machinery.
Who would ever do that? Not my reccomendation. I was stating the measurements including mpg at 65 which was also well over the EPA numbers. Not everybody drives on turnpikes or interstates all the time. There are actually some roads with 55 mph speed limits, where 65 is not at all dangerous. The point is comparing apples to apples. If somebody complains about poor fuel mileage, but drive too fast, at different speeds, and for short distances the reason is obfvious.
One real easy way to tell how smoothly (and efficiently) somebody drives is how long their brakes last. Less braking is more efficient. The front pads on my Integra lasted 180,000 miles. Why slam on the brakes at a stop light when you can coast.
As far as higher speed MPG goes for Hondas. The speed limit is 75 where I live and my Integra (stick shift) gets 32 mpg going 80. This is with an EPA highway of 28. I can't drive fast enough to only get 28 mpg.
Using 25 mpg doesn't make sense when a car idles at 650-750 rpm, with no strain on the engine.
When you're driving, the rpm's are way higher than at idle, not to mention the load on the motor. Yes, idling wastes gas, but I don't think as much as you seem to claim.
Another point of triangulation is the OLM's. I can almost guarantee you that with identical Civic's (with OLM's) that the Civic with 38 mpg will go longer between OLM directed oil changes than the Civic which gets 25 mpg.
Interesting advice. You all are complaining about 25 mpg, yet recommend a tire that gets 1-2 mpg less, for 23-24 mpg?
The other way to look at this: when folks need advice on how to get 25 mpg, when 38-42 will do; folks that actually GET 25 mpg are THE resource.
It will be interesting to see what the diesel that hits the USA will do in either a Civic or more likely Accord platform.
Had to do some stop and go during rush hour on the streets of San Francisco, after entering Frisco in FULL rush hour traffic on a FRIDAY night.
Pedestrians walk around like they are either drunk, oblivious, blind, don't care or all of the above