Curiously enough the same engineer responsible (years ago) for the VTEC is the same that developed and brought to market the Honda iCTDI (diesel). A variant of the engine selling in the European market since 2003 should hit our shores at the earliest 2009 in the "Accord" type platform, among others to come after.
I am having similar problems. I just bought a 2007 Civic EX with AT on August 25th. I too live in Metro Atlanta, commute to Midtown 5 times a week, but this weekend I've been trying to drive on the highway more - even leaving the car in cruise - but I still seem to be getting around 27 mpg. It hasn't been as hot this last week, and I have the A/C on the lowest setting. I'm on my second tank as well, about halfway through, so I'm not sure if it takes a few tanks for the car to get broken in or what. But I didn't buy this car for it to get less than 30 mpg, I'm looking for at least the low 30s and mid to high 30s at a minimum if I am doing all highway like I was on yesterday.
I am confused and slowly turning into a skeptic. Not sure if it is my year/model or no?
For people who've had their cars longer, did you get the same gas mileage on your first few tanks as you are now?
Pretty much the same. I got 1-3 mpg better for an average of 2 mpg better when I went to Mobil One 0w20 (synthetic). Starting with the few tank fulls after the 10,000 miles first OCI, till the present (50,000 miles). If you have not driven a Civic before, not only are you going through new car and new car break in issues, but also how to drive the Civic (your particular one) for max mpg or better than what you are getting at least. So you may or may not be driving for (YOUR environments)the Honda's "sweet spot". So without knowing what you were getting on the car before, given the same conditions, I am guessing you are driving the Civic the way you drove your car before the Civic.
So for example we drive a 27 mile daily commute in some of the worst commute roads (worst roads, 2nd worse delays (LA is first) literally in the nation (as rated by transportation professionals) and it gets between 38-42 mpg. Lately we have been getting more like 40.6-42 mpg. In a TDI under same to similar conditons, we get 48-52 mpg. I know you folks in Atlanta tend to get humid heat, but to me it is not worth NOT running the A/C just to get better mpg. This is a long way of saying we run the A/C almost all the time, except in winter.
Those numbers sound great. Out of curiosity what was the final assembly location of your Civic? I have the same model as you, manufactured in Ohio (final assembly I should say) and I'm on tank #2, but my numbers are low. I am not sure how accurate I was on my last calc, but I will be more accurate this time, but I wonder if where your car was assembled impacts your MPG?
Well it IS a well known fact among SAME engines there are statistical variations. I am sure there is some IE working on getting even more narrow variance and for sure to shave costs! I would tend not to think it would make THAT much difference. Off the top of my head I don't know. I have both the owners manual and the 2.5 in thick shop manual and can research it, if it does nag at you. It certainly does not explain the results on a VW Jetta TDI which is not part of Honda Civic's statistical analysis. I look at both only because we use either or both for the SAME commute. So the real question would be are the Civic engines assembled in one place and then shipped to assembly locations, or assembled at each location. Again my SWAG since they follow JIT logistical flows, they probably assemble completed sub units. An engine/transmission combo would be a sub unit, for example. I know for a fact that the VW Jetta TDI engine is assembled, tested and packed for shipment in Germany and pallet shipped to Mexico for the final assembly.
So for example we run 34/35 psi in the Civic tires, which for our model in the owners manual is considered the "high speed" recommendation. Any more than that the ride is HARD to our SOTP!! Plus the handling becomes a bit weird, which we do not like. So just the TP difference alone can account for at least some mpg variance.
Update: I just looked at the door pillar information and it says Ontario, Canada, man dtd: 08/04.
After 12 tanks at about 4350 miles on the 2007 MT LX Civic I haven't noticed any improvement in milage. Oil indicates 40% life left.
So far I haven't been able to find similar enough driving conditions to get a handle on what the A/C does to milage, but I am confident milage will drop when going from 55 with A/C to 65 without A/C. At 75 I couldn't see any difference at all with A/C, just too difficult to measure whatever small difference there is.
My overall average is now 40.6 MPG at about 4100 miles.
As you have stated, you are on track for an almost 7250 mile OCI. If 10,000 mile OCI's are the rated OCI (given conventional oil) with your OLM, that would indicate you operate your Civic under app 28% harder conditions than the so called "easy use."
When I retired, I promised myself I would try to never drive on a surface street inside 285 again. Colony Square, the IBM Tower and Coke on North Avenue were my homes for many years.
Atlanta traffic is horrible. It is stop-stop-go..no wait stop! I'm surprised you are getting as well as you are. After break-in you may get 2-3 more.
We own a 2006 EX sedan automatic and I disagree with many concepts presented here. 1. that break in will increase your fuel economy in some significant way. Maybe with some other brands (Hyundai comes to mind) but not so much with Honda (for us anyhow) so I wouldn't hold your breath. 2. that A.C. use will decrease fuel economy in some significant way. Be comfortable. Ours is always on except very early winter...winter..very early spring. and use or non use is insignificant in any meaningful way. 3. city or metro mileage (with lots of stop/go) will be near or over 30 mpg. Experience shows that small town use (ours) will yield about 24-26 mpg in summer and less in winter. 4. on the other hand strictly highway use at intellegent speeds (70-72 mph) WILL yield upper 30's. Ours was in the 38-40 mpg range. If speed goes up mileage goes down it is just that simple contrary to those who insist they get 40+ mpg at 85-90 mph. 5. that there is some secret or different driving style required with these Civics to get the best fuel economy. They are like every other car..floor it at every light, travel at 90 mph, hit passing gear at each and every opportunity and mileage WILL suffer. Drive smoothly and at a steady 65-72 mph and mileage will be good. In order to see the best mileage you need to burn the whole tank at highway speeds not 1/2 tank in city conditions and the rest at highway speed. That will show a composite or combined mileage. Your 27 sounds pretty much exactly what combined mileage should be for this car.
"... If speed goes up mileage goes down it is just that simple contrary to those who insist they get 40+ mpg at 85-90 mph"...
I am not sure who made your phantom (quoted) assertion. Given your quote, indeed it was you (unless you did not make that quote)! I got 41 at between 65-85 mpg. (see my post for the whole post, or more importantly, the other variables) 90mph would have had me using more lanes and more brakes and I would swag getting less than 40.9 mpg. Now I have gotten 48-50 mpg in a TDI at those averages, but not the Civic. Also in the context of that travel corridor, going your quoted speeds makes not too much sense. So evidently, the numbers (miles traveled/gals filled at first click off) disagree with your disagreement.
..."Your 27 sounds pretty much exactly what combined mileage should be for this car."...
If I got even close to 27 mpg in the Civic, there is not much sense in getting/keeping a so called "economy car" not when one can get a 24-28 in a 2001 V8 Z06 Corvette!! Indeed 19/28 is the EPA for the new Honda Accord/Toyota Camry V6.
However, I can accept the fact that you get the mileage that you get.
If you can get 24-28 mpg combined city/highway mpg in a Corvette, you should call the automotive press because it would be a big story.
You'll notice that the combined mpg on the Accord is also in the low 20s at best. I think 27 mpg is on the low side for combined mpg on a Civic, but not if the bulk of the miles are city miles and/or there's a lot of stop and go driving on the highway. Or if the pedal is to the metal frequently.
"If you can get 24-28 mpg combined city/highway mpg in a Corvette, you should call the automotive press because it would be a big story. "
See what a difference perspective makes? To me, it is just another DAY (no big deal)!
..."You'll notice that the combined mpg on the Accord is also in the low 20s at best. I think 27 mpg is on the low side for combined mpg on a Civic, but not if the bulk of the miles are city miles and/or there's a lot of stop and go driving on the highway. Or if the pedal is to the metal frequently"...
Indeed I posted the EPA fiqures of 19/28 for the Accord/Camry, so I am glad you can agree. As for 27 mpg on the Civic (being on the low side), just by inference, I am sure you see I would agree. In 50,000 miles of driving this Civic we have never gotten 27 mpg, although the new car stick says the range is between 24 & 34 mpg in the city and 32 and 44 mpg on the highway, with a 29/38 epa. So indeed 38-42 mpg FALLS within the RANGE of the (2004) Civic new car sticker postings. Actually so does 27 mpg.
Can I get 27 mpg (or less) on a Civic? I am sure I can if I flog it! So is anyone up to letting me flog their Civic, to see if I can duplicate? :lemon:
Once again I cannot follow your convoluted train of thought...but it is probably universally accepted by anyone who can acknowledge things like wind resistance (that increases at higher speeds until it overcomes the Cd of the vehicle) and higher engine speeds (in RPM)occur the faster you go conspire to drag down economy. High speed and great fuel economy do not go hand and hand so it was with that almost universally accepted concept in mind that I made that statement. From time to time on this site I see that boast. Whether you said it or not is irrevelant to the basic premise that high speed does not produce super fuel economy. I know diesel cars get "great" economy so high speeds may reduce that to merely "good" economy. I don't own one so I don't really know how diesel conforms to my statement although diesel cars also reach a point where wind resistance plays a large part of overall economy. With regard to combined fuel economy the new revised EPA guide has the 2007 Civic auto. at 25 city/36 highway with a combined ave of 30.5 (if you do as I did..add the two together and divide by 2). This, by the way, is pretty much in line with what I personally get city. and reasonably close to what I normally get highway so where am I so wrong with this??? If you get 24-28 in a Z06 Corvette all I can say is "it will go faster than 35 mph". I don't own a Corvette but I am willing to wager nobody ever got 28 mpg...in a Z06 no less. Finally, the combined average for the new V-6 Accord (again adding the city to the highway and dividing by 2)is 26mpg. The numbers stand according to the EPA revised edition.
"If you get 24-28 in a Z06 Corvette all I can say is "it will go faster than 35 mph". I don't own a Corvette but I am willing to wager nobody ever got 28 mpg...in a Z06 no less."
Actually there are a few folks who occasionally post here in the TownHall with Z06 Vettes that claim over 30 mpg at highway speeds. True? Don't know.
"Once again I cannot follow your convoluted train of thought..."
If you consider 40.9 mpg (given a prior post, but ultimately it is miles driven/gals taken) convoluted, then I can imagine why you have the issues that you do!? I was just reporting what was done between those miles and gals. So actually it is about your disbelief, rather than any rational discussion issues.
Incidently, it might be telling that of the folks that have gotten "low" mpg or considered out of stated range or expectation mpg (almost) NOBODY has taken it to either the Honda dealer's nor independent Honda repair specialists' to either confirm or deny machinery issues and/or reported the findings.
One one level, this is a tad disappointing in that a successful class action suit could have some (wider) residual benefits, such as; past checks received in the mail for older Toyota sub par brake pads and rotor issues. :lemon: Sure wish I got one for that sludge monster Toyota Camry I had at one time.
I have NOT gotten 30 plus on the Z06. But at the same time, I do not drive it in a way that maximizes the chances of getting 30 plus mpg. So all I can really say is; that would not be me.
Wow you folks are passionate about your gas mileage ideas and claims.
Not sure about the effect of breakin on our Civic as it is fairly new, and I don't get to measure it much (wife's car and she never resets the trip!) But I'm getting about 41 hwy and 35 in the burbs.
But on our CRV mileage seems to have gone up by about 3 mpg since we bought it and AC does seem to matter for about 2 mph hwy.
Oh yea EPA ratings be damned I still think the stick beats the auto for MPGs.
I also agree that the whole driving style sweet spot thing is BS. Most folks KNOW how to save gas. It's intuitive. OK maybe not most, I can't understand people getting below 28 or 30 in a Civic if they are TRYING. Discounting pure city stop and go. Then maybe 25.
..."Oh yea EPA ratings be damned I still think the stick beats the auto for MPGs. "...
Indeed the manual normally gets better mpg over the automatic!
But I am not sure what you mean in that one can easily go to Edmunds.com. (or other sites for that matter) and get the EPA for amy model that has a manual (stick) and/or automatic and/or DSG if so offered or equipped.
"As you have stated, you are on track for an almost 7250 mile OCI. If 10,000 mile OCI's are the rated OCI (given conventional oil) with your OLM, that would indicate you operate your Civic under app 28% harder conditions than the so called "easy use."
Actually this is the first oil change coming up for the car. I assume the 10,000 mile is normal for then on? Didn't know that, thanks. Wow, I may consider going to synthetic with that many miles.
don't use the mileage as the gage of when to change oil. The OLM is THE way to determine oil life, it's more accurate, and it's the one that Honda will look at if/when any warranty issues arise.
Yes, I am not trying to get anyone out of their comfort zones, but even the conventional (5w20 oils, Ford/Honda specifications) are VERY VERY VERY robust. But to cut to the quick the, OLM operates on a 7 TBN calculation (conventional oil) VS Mobil One (synthetic) 5w20, 0w20, with a 12 TBN. Olm's are currently NOT adjustable. So the math would indicate synthetic EASILY doing a 10,000 mile OCI.
The 2004 Civic does NOT have an OLM and the owners' and shop manuals recommend 10,000 mile OCI's(with conventional oil), with oil filter changes at 20,000 miles or every other (during warranty). Since I am 14,000 miles out of warranty, it has been moot for that long/many miles. Indeed most of my mpg reports have been closer to the 20,000 mile OCI interval rather than a fresh change reading. So for example the 40.9 mpg report is at 11,000 miles on the current OCI. I will look to do an OCI in 9,000 more miles or for a 20,000 mile OCI (70,000 miles). Got to love these "economy cars". :shades:
I learned a bit about OLM after trying to find what the OCI is. At 200 miles I checked the oil, it was so clean I had trouble finding it on the stick. 1000 miles, same thing. At 4000 miles there is some slight discoloration so is visible. I have never seen an engine run this clean!
Yeah I am surprised that since this is a Honda specific (CIVIC) thread that more folks do not mention it is common knowledge, the Civic engines run VERY VERY VERY CLEANLY!
Shoot for that matter, the V8 Z06 engine can easily run a 15,000 miles OCI's and it HAS an OLM. Mine goes off app 14,600 or so. The caveat is the OLM IS calibrated to Mobil One 5w30, which is (redundantly) synthetic and has a TBN of 12.
It is a rough representation of the remaining anti-wear and friction modifier additives in the oil. Typical high quality 5W-20 (Honda or Ford approved) oil has a TBN of about 7, typical high quality synthetic oil (Mobil 1 0W-20 through 0W-40 for instance) has a TBN of about 12.
When I did my first UOA (Used Oil Analysis) on one of our cars running Mobil 1 0W-40, I started at a conservative 8,000 miles. The UOA came back showing that I still had over a third of my TBN remaining (it was four point something). Since then I've been sending in samples with over 10,000 miles on the oil, the worst result was when I went nearly 12,000 miles and the TBN was just below 1.
I will read up on some of the oil forums for oil and filter recommendations. I've always considered fairly short OCI with filter as cheap insurance.
Just to stay on the mileage topic I would recommend anyone interested in getting better mileage to use a ScanGaugeII or similar gadget. I make a 14 mile trip to town and back several times a week. On the way in the ScanGauge usually reads 50 mpg plus for the current trip. Reality sets in when it reads 35 plus for the current trip coming back, avg around 43 for round trip.. amazing what a 500 ft elevation chamge will do.
Indeed there is an SAE paper (that one has to pay to read or down load) , which indicates that changing the oil more often actually causes MORE and faster wear!!!!
For sure the scan gauge can be used among other purposes for a behavior modification tool. So if you pay attention to it (and the car mainly) one can extract a better mpg going the EXACT route one usually goes.
So for example the Civic because of its auto tranmission design likes to hunt for the best gear and goes through what I call a rubber band stretching routine. I found the mpg is better if one just lets the system "find itself" rather than stomp down on the pedal to override the rubber band effect.
As for the last 40.9 mpg report, when I took it on the freeway, the goal was to go 75 mph in the SLOW lane. So at times, I slowed to 65 mpg (those trucks don't readily move out of the slow lane), but usually pass and go back to 75 mph and in the process have plenty of 85 mph bursts. So as one can infer, it is far from a steady one speed. There is not doubt in my own mind if I did a steady speed like you tend to do, a 43 mpg would NOT be out of reach. But then I do run the A/C during 100 plus ambient temperatures. :sick: :shades:
don't use the mileage as the gage of when to change oil. The OLM is THE way to determine oil life, it's more accurate, and it's the one that Honda will look at if/when any warranty issues arise.
Based on what I've seen so far I'm looking at 10k or more before the monitor is down near zero. There's no way I'm waiting that long for an oil change, especially the first one. I'll probably do the first one about 2k and then every 5-6k max after that. There's no way they can deny warranty with proof of more frequent changes than required.
As for mpg, I just filled after an at home tank of mixed driving and got 37 mpg.
Some of the dialogue is confusing me, but I think my first tank results may be slightly off. I am on my second tank and plan to fill up in the next two days. Someone mentioned the reserve in the fuel tank, so 20 notches doesn't exactly equal 13.2 gallons, so I guess the only way to get an accurate read is via the odometer and the actual mileage your car fills up on - ideally using the same pump/station. I just want to do this a few times to see what I'm actually getting.
With rough numbers I think I may actually be getting around 30-33 mpg. This time I had a little more highway from this weekend when I used the cruise and the roads were light, but my usual commute is a WHOLE LOT of stop and go, so if I got 27 mpg during the week maybe that wouldn't be so crazy.
I've given up on trying to watch the speed and AC. I think I have gotten better results by not trying. And it does seem to be getting better as I put more miles on the car and 'break it in' so to speak (just my opinion).
Someone has inferred that if a 2006 Civic (mine) gets mid 20's in urban use (it does) and mid 30's on the highway (it does) then I should take it in to have a "check-up" performed at my friendly Honda dealer to see if there is some physical/mechanical reason it is so low then check back here with the results. There are several faults with this statement. 1. I am not complaining about fuel economy. I have been stating my own experience as a comparison to use for those who seem to think theirs is "low". 2. Our car is running perfectly, it has around 10K miles showing and is done with any "break-in" (I think). I have no reason to suspect a mechanical fault so it would be folly to demand the dealer to "do something" to improve what I already believe to be reasonable fuel economy. 3.My experience over 2 years use and 10K miles in the same circumstances day in and day out has proven to me that this is simply what a 2006/2007 Civic automatic will provide. We do not drive in any bizarre or unconventional manner so if someone comes to this site stating they get mileage approximating ours I will agree that: "yeah, thats what they get". The fact that others will imply that there is something wrong with my car or I don't know the "secret" method (in driving a Honda) in order to get the "best" economy is simply wrong. Those looking for the secret to get the unbelievable mileages I see here from time to time are..in my opinion..wasting their time. If you 2006/07 Civic owners are getting mid 20's in your urban drive (not total grid-lock) and mid-to-upper 30's on unrestricted highway runs (at reasonable speeds) then my experience (and the EPA)says you are doing well. If, on the other hand you start believing (as others state) you should be looking for 30+ in the city and somewhere in the middle 40's highway you will be looking for non existing problems with you car, your driving style and your toothpaste as well. It is time to realize that this car...any car is only capable of a certain maximum fuel economy. Yeah, I will be chastised for what I have said and yeah, there are those who drive a max. of 40 mph, only drive on flat land, drive down hill only, and on and on. They may get those high numbers but for the average person like me..well I know what I get and there is NOTHING wrong with the car. Perhaps something is wrong with the expectations OF the car. This is my take on the matter. As usual it is all my personal, observed over 2 years and 10K miles OPINION. Nuff said.
..."although the new car stick says the range is between 24 & 34 mpg in the city and 32 and 44 mpg on the highway, with a 29/38 epa. So indeed 38-42 mpg FALLS within the RANGE of the (2004) Civic new car sticker postings. Actually so does 27 mpg. "...
Glad you agree with the both my quote and new car sticker EPA issue posting.
Most (new) cars (specifically Honda Civics) go through a pretty rigorous new car delivery checklist and this is not to mentioned the almost exhaustive new car final inspections. Generally on a new car, the only real thing I normally insist on and is usually covered by any 12 mo 12,000 miles new car warranty is the check of the alignment and adjust if needed. For some reason a high % is sometimes out of spec or out of "optimium" adjustment. So even alignment, may or may not have anything to do with mpg. To me it is important in that out of alignment conditions can affect handling and stopping AND the pocketbook in terms of uneven and/or premature tire wear. So given a "non" defective car, normally the fuel mileage issue, given operating conditions is usually between one's headsets.
..."Someone has inferred that if a 2006 Civic (mine) gets mid 20's in urban use (it does) and mid 30's on the highway (it does) then I should take it in to have a "check-up" performed at my friendly Honda dealer to see if there is some physical/mechanical reason it is so low then check back here with the results. There are several faults with this statement."...
Once again, a phantom assertion!? :lemon: Nobody has "inferred" that you should take YOURS to your friendly Honda dealer to have a "check-up" I certainly have NOT for "THAT" reason.
..."3.My experience over 2 years use and 10K miles in the same circumstances day in and day out has proven to me that this is simply what a 2006/2007 Civic automatic will provide. "...
Your quote indicates 5,000 miles average in a year! Your car has a lot of experiences "sitting around". If indeed you drive every day, that is something on the order of 13.7 miles per day. Your car barely has time to warm up!? If so, these are very HARD but short (from an operational point of view) miles. It is an absolute no brainer to expect the lower range mph. Indeed the mpg you do get under YOUR circumstances is pretty GOOD!
OK then, while you HAVE made a general statement to that effect and since the mileage as I have posted does not agree with what you think is possible I have lumped myself and my car into that general "suggestion" (perhaps wrongly). Did you specifically point at me and make the statement? Nope! Do I feel I am I included in the group of owners who you think may benefit from this? yeah I believe so. Further I wish you would stop quoting what the sticker says on your 2004 Civic. It is NOT a 2006 and the sticker states differently on those. Also since then the EPA proceedure has had a major overhaul and now provides numbers that more closely aligns with the "real world" and my experience as well. Finally, if you would read that sticker more closely you would find that your 2004 Civic falls into a general size class of cars (from ALL manufacturers in 2004) that broadly range from 24-to-34 city AND 32-to-44 highway. It specifically states the 2004 Civic at 29 city-38 highway using the large numbers on the sticker. These are the numbers winnowed out from the larger group of numbers (in small print). These are the numbers that your actual car can be expected to get if you believe the EPA. I wish you would stop using that larger group of numbers as proof that a 2004 Civic will get between such and such. All those numbers mean is that in 2004 there were some small cars (in the Civics size range) that could get less mileage city/highway and some that could get slightly more and you as a consumer in the market for a small car in 2004 should look around for the best mileage within your personal criterea...price etc. Nothing more...it is a list of lowest to highest numbers you could potentially find in 2004 on a Civic, Elantra, Escort, Sentra etc.
There is a broad range of mpg's being reported and I wonder what the correlation, if any, is between those reports and shift rpm. I have almost 2k miles on my 07 LX automatic. So far I'm seeing 39mpg in almost all highway and 36mpg in mixed driving around 50/50.
My car turns about 2600 rpm at 70mph on the highway. I drive with a very light foot and rarely see the north side of 2500 rpm unless/until I get to 70mph on the highway. I'm curious if those reporting 2x city and lower 3x highway have higher shift points. So folks, how about re-reporting your mpg as well as your typical rpm shift points?
..."Further I wish you would stop quoting what the sticker says on your 2004 Civic. It is NOT a 2006 and the sticker states differently on those"...
Since you do seem to have non specific, specific issues, and specific NON specific issues (there are more categories I am sure), I will continue to quote it as a baseline. If I left it off, the first things you'd probably say are all are different or that is not what it says on MINE, etc, etc,! This way you have NO doubt where I am coming from. One may adjust accordingly! Or not, (in your case)
In regard to 2nd paragraph, your EPA vs real world and/or closer to it, 38/42 mpg is what I DO get REAL WORLD! Now what change to the EPA ratings, changed what I get real world!? Let me clue you, it has not changed a THING!
Well, shift RPM has a huge relationship to MPG, as the longer you stay in the lower gear, the more fuel you are using. The traditional high-mileage methodology is to shift up as quickly as possible. Even an automatic transmission allows you some control as the harder you stand on the gas pedal, the higher the shift point. Light on the pedal will let it shift up sooner.
It sounds like you are well into good mileage, and as you show, driving style is one of the largest determining factors, as well as the one most folks can actually control themselves.
Mileage is purely a system of tradeoffs, and we all tradeoff different things in order to drive the way we choose. Some of us place a higher priority on the utmost in MPG, some of us don't.
I'm sure that if I slowed down my mileage would improve. However, it's not a tradeoff I wish to make. It's just my style. (and my wife hates it....)
..."Mileage is purely a system of tradeoffs, and we all tradeoff different things in order to drive the way we choose. Some of us place a higher priority on the utmost in MPG, some of us don't. ...
...I'm sure that if I slowed down my mileage would improve. However, it's not a tradeoff I wish to make. It's just my style. (and my wife hates it....) "...
Absolutely and positively!! To respond to both your paragraphs, another reason why even after 98,000 miles on a VW Jetta TDI diesel, I still like turbo diesel. I have ranged from 44 mpg to 62 mpg!! As one can surmise the 62 mpg was driving in a "fuel miser mode" mentality. Truthfully watching paint dry in comparison was like a BLOOD sport! 44 mpg was more like ascending up the mountains and cruising... (at xxx digits). In that same commute 48-52 mpg is the range. I am curious to see what a Civic TDI would do (mpg wise) in that the VW Jetta TDI is app 500#'s heavier than the Civic.!!! Think of it as measuring fuel mileage with one person vs 3/4 persons. (depending on how many people add the extra 500#'s )
I erroneously reported my rpm at 70mph as 2600 when it actually is about 2300 rpm at 70. I made it a point to observe today and my usual shift points out of 1st, 2nd and 3rd gears are about 2400, 2300 and 2200 rpm. The shift out of 4th is too soft to be certain of but I think it's around 2100. Yes, I accelerate slowly and no, I don't get to 70mph as soon as you (generically speaking) do however I do get to 70 and enjoy what appears to be fairly high mpg as my reward.
For comparisons you might want to do a faster acceleration and compare the mpg. There actually is a more longitudinal motive. These motors benefit from 60% to redline every so often. For the more brisk acceleration, I like to have the vehicle fully warm: translation in operation from half to 1 hour.
The other motive: while it is counter intuitive, ( someone else posted it) ; but you actually save fuel "briskly accelerating to your so called "cruising speed" than so called meandering UP to it. The fellow with the scan gauge can easily verify this.
I got my third tank, and my mpg was 31 mpg. Better than 27. This time I had half city (bad stop and go) and half highway/suburbs cruising. I'd like a little more info on the rpm. Which are you saying gets better gas mileage? Getting to your speed more quickly, or less quickly? Also, Atlanta being so hilly, I think the terrain is affecting my numbers. When I visit Florida later in the year I'm sure my numbers will go way up.
I am of the leisurely camp while some believe it uses less fuel to quickly get up to speed and then cruise. Flatter terrain should definitely help your numbers.
I've heard the theory of accelerating quickly (but not full throttle) up to speed as a means of improving fuel economy, and to say the least I find that premise suspect. I have now had five different cars with both an "Instant" and an "Average" fuel economy readout in the car and have yet to see any evidence to support that theory, quite to the contrary really.
"Getting to the next gear quickly" doesn't mean a hard pedal between shifts, it means shifting up as soon as possible.
in an automatic, it means you would ALLOW the car to shift as soon as IT WANTS TO, rather than holding down the pedal longer (which effectively raises the shift point). In older non-ECT automatics, a slight backing off the gas would let it upshift, and then easing the pedal there would keep it there until the next shift point came. If you were good you could pretty much force the trans to shift up or down anytime you wanted.
Some car makers used to put a "Economy-Power" switch (on automatics) to let you select. "Power" simply raised the shift point towards the top end, "Econ" just forced the shift a bit lower in the range. It worked well but was easily over-ridden by foot action.
Shifting (or allowing it to shift in the case of an auto) as soon as possible that is what will get you better mileage.
Right, You articulated it better than I did. I covered it in msg #1206 about the "rubber banding" that I experienced with our Honda Civic. For me, at first it was a tad frustrating. I felt like, coulda, woulda, shoulda, gotten a manual shift!! When BRAND new, I just pressed the accelerator down farther to so called "overcome" this frustrating feeling/obstacle. Then it dawned on me that on the auto, there was something either wrong or it was put there for a purpose. So fault isolating led to working with it, rather than so called "overcoming" or fighting it.
Of topic, since I drive other makes and models, I drive each according to their designs (differently). It is a bit like getting on a bicycle, you sort of remember it.
If some one can qualify "briskly accelerating" in terms of manifold pressure and/or engine load I will try to see what the scangauge claims. Only check I can make on ScanGauge accuracy is the total gas used between fill up and it is usually 1% or less off what the pumps read. Sorta difficult when the readout resolution is 0.1 gal and I fill around 10 gal.
My impression is that the lower acceleration the better but haven't paid much attention as there are no stop lights in my area. Usually not much traffic either. I did notice in Tucson, Az with lots of max acceleration and waits for several traffic light changes during rush hours the milage seemed to be heading southwards of 30 mpg.
Actually, that is not hard at all, however rare it probably is. VAG.com (VW products) lets you plug in a laptop computer (VAG.com software program) into your OBD (computer) port and you can see the whole range graphically as you drive in the real world. You can even make IQ adjustments on the fly!!?? I would however SWAG that not many people do this, even folks that own VW products.
Comments
http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2003-4030226_1a/
I am confused and slowly turning into a skeptic. Not sure if it is my year/model or no?
For people who've had their cars longer, did you get the same gas mileage on your first few tanks as you are now?
So for example we drive a 27 mile daily commute in some of the worst commute roads (worst roads, 2nd worse delays (LA is first) literally in the nation (as rated by transportation professionals) and it gets between 38-42 mpg. Lately we have been getting more like 40.6-42 mpg. In a TDI under same to similar conditons, we get 48-52 mpg. I know you folks in Atlanta tend to get humid heat, but to me it is not worth NOT running the A/C just to get better mpg. This is a long way of saying we run the A/C almost all the time, except in winter.
So for example we run 34/35 psi in the Civic tires, which for our model in the owners manual is considered the "high speed" recommendation. Any more than that the ride is HARD to our SOTP!!
Update: I just looked at the door pillar information and it says Ontario, Canada, man dtd: 08/04.
So far I haven't been able to find similar enough driving conditions to get a handle on what the A/C does to milage, but I am confident milage will drop when going from 55 with A/C to 65 without A/C. At 75 I couldn't see any difference at all with A/C, just too difficult to measure whatever small difference there is.
My overall average is now 40.6 MPG at about 4100 miles.
40.6 or 41 mpg is very good!!
When I retired, I promised myself I would try to never drive on a surface street inside 285 again. Colony Square, the IBM Tower and Coke on North Avenue were my homes for many years.
Atlanta traffic is horrible. It is stop-stop-go..no wait stop! I'm surprised you are getting as well as you are. After break-in you may get 2-3 more.
Kip
1 - 34.5
2 - 36.8
3 - 37.9
4 - 39.2
Needless to say I am very pleased. Most of these trips were with AC on and traveling 70 - 75 mphs. My last vehicle I was getting 16-18 mpg...Hahaha
1. that break in will increase your fuel economy in some significant way. Maybe with some other brands (Hyundai comes to mind) but not so much with Honda (for us anyhow) so I wouldn't hold your breath.
2. that A.C. use will decrease fuel economy in some significant way. Be comfortable. Ours is always on except very early winter...winter..very early spring. and use or non use is insignificant in any meaningful way.
3. city or metro mileage (with lots of stop/go) will be near or over 30 mpg. Experience shows that small town use (ours) will yield about 24-26 mpg in summer and less in winter.
4. on the other hand strictly highway use at intellegent speeds (70-72 mph) WILL yield upper 30's. Ours was in the 38-40 mpg range. If speed goes up mileage goes down it is just that simple contrary to those who insist they get 40+ mpg at 85-90 mph.
5. that there is some secret or different driving style required with these Civics to get the best fuel economy. They are like every other car..floor it at every light, travel at 90 mph, hit passing gear at each and every opportunity and mileage WILL suffer. Drive smoothly and at a steady 65-72 mph and mileage will be good.
In order to see the best mileage you need to burn the whole tank at highway speeds not 1/2 tank in city conditions and the rest at highway speed. That will show a composite or combined mileage. Your 27 sounds pretty much exactly what combined mileage should be for this car.
I am not sure who made your phantom (quoted) assertion. Given your quote, indeed it was you (unless you did not make that quote)! I got 41 at between 65-85 mpg. (see my post for the whole post, or more importantly, the other variables) 90mph would have had me using more lanes and more brakes and I would swag getting less than 40.9 mpg. Now I have gotten 48-50 mpg in a TDI at those averages, but not the Civic.
..."Your 27 sounds pretty much exactly what combined mileage should be for this car."...
If I got even close to 27 mpg in the Civic, there is not much sense in getting/keeping a so called "economy car" not when one can get a 24-28 in a 2001 V8 Z06 Corvette!! Indeed 19/28 is the EPA for the new Honda Accord/Toyota Camry V6.
However, I can accept the fact that you get the mileage that you get.
You'll notice that the combined mpg on the Accord is also in the low 20s at best. I think 27 mpg is on the low side for combined mpg on a Civic, but not if the bulk of the miles are city miles and/or there's a lot of stop and go driving on the highway. Or if the pedal is to the metal frequently.
See what a difference perspective makes? To me, it is just another DAY (no big deal)!
..."You'll notice that the combined mpg on the Accord is also in the low 20s at best. I think 27 mpg is on the low side for combined mpg on a Civic, but not if the bulk of the miles are city miles and/or there's a lot of stop and go driving on the highway. Or if the pedal is to the metal frequently"...
Indeed I posted the EPA fiqures of 19/28 for the Accord/Camry, so I am glad you can agree. As for 27 mpg on the Civic (being on the low side), just by inference, I am sure you see I would agree. In 50,000 miles of driving this Civic we have never gotten 27 mpg, although the new car stick says the range is between 24 & 34 mpg in the city and 32 and 44 mpg on the highway, with a 29/38 epa. So indeed 38-42 mpg FALLS within the RANGE of the (2004) Civic new car sticker postings. Actually so does 27 mpg.
Can I get 27 mpg (or less) on a Civic? I am sure I can if I flog it! So is anyone up to letting me flog their Civic, to see if I can duplicate? :lemon:
With regard to combined fuel economy the new revised EPA guide has the 2007 Civic auto. at 25 city/36 highway with a combined ave of 30.5 (if you do as I did..add the two together and divide by 2). This, by the way, is pretty much in line with what I personally get city. and reasonably close to what I normally get highway so where am I so wrong with this???
If you get 24-28 in a Z06 Corvette all I can say is "it will go faster than 35 mph". I don't own a Corvette but I am willing to wager nobody ever got 28 mpg...in a Z06 no less.
Finally, the combined average for the new V-6 Accord (again adding the city to the highway and dividing by 2)is 26mpg. The numbers stand according to the EPA revised edition.
Actually there are a few folks who occasionally post here in the TownHall with Z06 Vettes that claim over 30 mpg at highway speeds. True? Don't know.
Best Regards,
Shipo
If you consider 40.9 mpg (given a prior post, but ultimately it is miles driven/gals taken) convoluted, then I can imagine why you have the issues that you do!? I was just reporting what was done between those miles and gals. So actually it is about your disbelief, rather than any rational discussion issues.
Incidently, it might be telling that of the folks that have gotten "low" mpg or considered out of stated range or expectation mpg (almost) NOBODY has taken it to either the Honda dealer's nor independent Honda repair specialists' to either confirm or deny machinery issues and/or reported the findings.
One one level, this is a tad disappointing in that a successful class action suit could have some (wider) residual benefits, such as; past checks received in the mail for older Toyota sub par brake pads and rotor issues. :lemon: Sure wish I got one for that sludge monster Toyota Camry I had at one time.
Not sure about the effect of breakin on our Civic as it is fairly new, and I don't get to measure it much (wife's car and she never resets the trip!) But I'm getting about 41 hwy and 35 in the burbs.
But on our CRV mileage seems to have gone up by about 3 mpg since we bought it and AC does seem to matter for about 2 mph hwy.
Oh yea EPA ratings be damned I still think the stick beats the auto for MPGs.
I also agree that the whole driving style sweet spot thing is BS. Most folks KNOW how to save gas. It's intuitive. OK maybe not most, I can't understand people getting below 28 or 30 in a Civic if they are TRYING. Discounting pure city stop and go. Then maybe 25.
Indeed the manual normally gets better mpg over the automatic!
But I am not sure what you mean in that one can easily go to Edmunds.com. (or other sites for that matter) and get the EPA for amy model that has a manual (stick) and/or automatic and/or DSG if so offered or equipped.
Actually this is the first oil change coming up for the car. I assume the 10,000 mile is normal for then on? Didn't know that, thanks. Wow, I may consider going to synthetic with that many miles.
At 200 miles I checked the oil, it was so clean I had trouble finding it on the stick. 1000 miles, same thing. At 4000 miles there is some slight discoloration so is visible. I have never seen an engine run this clean!
What does TBN for the oil mean?
Guess I'm out of date on the new vehicles.
Yeah I am surprised that since this is a Honda specific (CIVIC) thread that more folks do not mention it is common knowledge, the Civic engines run VERY VERY VERY CLEANLY!
Shoot for that matter, the V8 Z06 engine can easily run a 15,000 miles OCI's and it HAS an OLM. Mine goes off app 14,600 or so. The caveat is the OLM IS calibrated to Mobil One 5w30, which is (redundantly) synthetic and has a TBN of 12.
It is a rough representation of the remaining anti-wear and friction modifier additives in the oil. Typical high quality 5W-20 (Honda or Ford approved) oil has a TBN of about 7, typical high quality synthetic oil (Mobil 1 0W-20 through 0W-40 for instance) has a TBN of about 12.
When I did my first UOA (Used Oil Analysis) on one of our cars running Mobil 1 0W-40, I started at a conservative 8,000 miles. The UOA came back showing that I still had over a third of my TBN remaining (it was four point something). Since then I've been sending in samples with over 10,000 miles on the oil, the worst result was when I went nearly 12,000 miles and the TBN was just below 1.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Just to stay on the mileage topic I would recommend anyone interested in getting better mileage to use a ScanGaugeII or similar gadget. I make a 14 mile trip to town and back several times a week. On the way in the ScanGauge usually reads 50 mpg plus for the current trip. Reality sets in when it reads 35 plus for the current trip coming back, avg around 43 for round trip.. amazing what a 500 ft elevation chamge will do.
For sure the scan gauge can be used among other purposes for a behavior modification tool. So if you pay attention to it (and the car mainly) one can extract a better mpg going the EXACT route one usually goes.
So for example the Civic because of its auto tranmission design likes to hunt for the best gear and goes through what I call a rubber band stretching routine. I found the mpg is better if one just lets the system "find itself" rather than stomp down on the pedal to override the rubber band effect.
As for the last 40.9 mpg report, when I took it on the freeway, the goal was to go 75 mph in the SLOW lane. So at times, I slowed to 65 mpg (those trucks don't readily move out of the slow lane), but usually pass and go back to 75 mph and in the process have plenty of 85 mph bursts. So as one can infer, it is far from a steady one speed. There is not doubt in my own mind if I did a steady speed like you tend to do, a 43 mpg would NOT be out of reach. But then I do run the A/C during 100 plus ambient temperatures. :sick: :shades:
Based on what I've seen so far I'm looking at 10k or more before the monitor is down near zero. There's no way I'm waiting that long for an oil change, especially the first one. I'll probably do the first one about 2k and then every 5-6k max after that. There's no way they can deny warranty with proof of more frequent changes than required.
As for mpg, I just filled after an at home tank of mixed driving and got 37 mpg.
With rough numbers I think I may actually be getting around 30-33 mpg. This time I had a little more highway from this weekend when I used the cruise and the roads were light, but my usual commute is a WHOLE LOT of stop and go, so if I got 27 mpg during the week maybe that wouldn't be so crazy.
I've given up on trying to watch the speed and AC. I think I have gotten better results by not trying. And it does seem to be getting better as I put more miles on the car and 'break it in' so to speak (just my opinion).
Once I get gas I'll report what I actually got.
Thanks for everyone's help!!!
1. I am not complaining about fuel economy. I have been stating my own experience as a comparison to use for those who seem to think theirs is "low".
2. Our car is running perfectly, it has around 10K miles showing and is done with any "break-in" (I think). I have no reason to suspect a mechanical fault so it would be folly to demand the dealer to "do something" to improve what I already believe to be reasonable fuel economy.
3.My experience over 2 years use and 10K miles in the same circumstances day in and day out has proven to me that this is simply what a 2006/2007 Civic automatic will provide. We do not drive in any bizarre or unconventional manner so if someone comes to this site stating they get mileage approximating ours I will agree that: "yeah, thats what they get". The fact that others will imply that there is something wrong with my car or I don't know the "secret" method (in driving a Honda) in order to get the "best" economy is simply wrong. Those looking for the secret to get the unbelievable mileages I see here from time to time are..in my opinion..wasting their time. If you 2006/07 Civic owners are getting mid 20's in your urban drive (not total grid-lock) and mid-to-upper 30's on unrestricted highway runs (at reasonable speeds) then my experience (and the EPA)says you are doing well. If, on the other hand you start believing (as others state) you should be looking for 30+ in the city and somewhere in the middle 40's highway you will be looking for non existing problems with you car, your driving style and your toothpaste as well. It is time to realize that this car...any car is only capable of a certain maximum fuel economy. Yeah, I will be chastised for what I have said and yeah, there are those who drive a max. of 40 mph, only drive on flat land, drive down hill only, and on and on. They may get those high numbers but for the average person like me..well I know what I get and there is NOTHING wrong with the car. Perhaps something is wrong with the expectations OF the car. This is my take on the matter. As usual it is all my personal, observed over 2 years and 10K miles OPINION. Nuff said.
Glad you agree with the both my quote and new car sticker EPA issue posting.
Most (new) cars (specifically Honda Civics) go through a pretty rigorous new car delivery checklist and this is not to mentioned the almost exhaustive new car final inspections. Generally on a new car, the only real thing I normally insist on and is usually covered by any 12 mo 12,000 miles new car warranty is the check of the alignment and adjust if needed. For some reason a high % is sometimes out of spec or out of "optimium" adjustment. So even alignment, may or may not have anything to do with mpg. To me it is important in that out of alignment conditions can affect handling and stopping AND the pocketbook in terms of uneven and/or premature tire wear. So given a "non" defective car, normally the fuel mileage issue, given operating conditions is usually between one's headsets.
..."Someone has inferred that if a 2006 Civic (mine) gets mid 20's in urban use (it does) and mid 30's on the highway (it does) then I should take it in to have a "check-up" performed at my friendly Honda dealer to see if there is some physical/mechanical reason it is so low then check back here with the results. There are several faults with this statement."...
Once again, a phantom assertion!? :lemon: Nobody has "inferred" that you should take YOURS to your friendly Honda dealer to have a "check-up" I certainly have NOT for "THAT" reason.
..."3.My experience over 2 years use and 10K miles in the same circumstances day in and day out has proven to me that this is simply what a 2006/2007 Civic automatic will provide. "...
Your quote indicates 5,000 miles average in a year! Your car has a lot of experiences "sitting around". If indeed you drive every day, that is something on the order of 13.7 miles per day. Your car barely has time to warm up!? If so, these are very HARD but short (from an operational point of view) miles. It is an absolute no brainer to expect the lower range mph. Indeed the mpg you do get under YOUR circumstances is pretty GOOD!
Further I wish you would stop quoting what the sticker says on your 2004 Civic. It is NOT a 2006 and the sticker states differently on those. Also since then the EPA proceedure has had a major overhaul and now provides numbers that more closely aligns with the "real world" and my experience as well.
Finally, if you would read that sticker more closely you would find that your 2004 Civic falls into a general size class of cars (from ALL manufacturers in 2004) that broadly range from 24-to-34 city AND 32-to-44 highway. It specifically states the 2004 Civic at 29 city-38 highway using the large numbers on the sticker. These are the numbers winnowed out from the larger group of numbers (in small print). These are the numbers that your actual car can be expected to get if you believe the EPA. I wish you would stop using that larger group of numbers as proof that a 2004 Civic will get between such and such. All those numbers mean is that in 2004 there were some small cars (in the Civics size range) that could get less mileage city/highway and some that could get slightly more and you as a consumer in the market for a small car in 2004 should look around for the best mileage within your personal criterea...price etc. Nothing more...it is a list of lowest to highest numbers you could potentially find in 2004 on a Civic, Elantra, Escort, Sentra etc.
My car turns about 2600 rpm at 70mph on the highway. I drive with a very light foot and rarely see the north side of 2500 rpm unless/until I get to 70mph on the highway. I'm curious if those reporting 2x city and lower 3x highway have higher shift points. So folks, how about re-reporting your mpg as well as your typical rpm shift points?
Since you do seem to have non specific, specific issues, and specific NON specific issues (there are more categories I am sure), I will continue to quote it as a baseline. If I left it off, the first things you'd probably say are all are different or that is not what it says on MINE, etc, etc,! This way you have NO doubt where I am coming from. One may adjust accordingly! Or not, (in your case)
In regard to 2nd paragraph, your EPA vs real world and/or closer to it, 38/42 mpg is what I DO get REAL WORLD! Now what change to the EPA ratings, changed what I get real world!? Let me clue you, it has not changed a THING!
below quote lifted from post below this one.
..."The traditional high-mileage methodology is to shift up as quickly as possible"
(don't even need a tachometer)
It sounds like you are well into good mileage, and as you show, driving style is one of the largest determining factors, as well as the one most folks can actually control themselves.
Mileage is purely a system of tradeoffs, and we all tradeoff different things in order to drive the way we choose. Some of us place a higher priority on the utmost in MPG, some of us don't.
I'm sure that if I slowed down my mileage would improve. However, it's not a tradeoff I wish to make. It's just my style. (and my wife hates it....)
...I'm sure that if I slowed down my mileage would improve. However, it's not a tradeoff I wish to make. It's just my style. (and my wife hates it....) "...
Absolutely and positively!! To respond to both your paragraphs, another reason why even after 98,000 miles on a VW Jetta TDI diesel, I still like turbo diesel. I have ranged from 44 mpg to 62 mpg!! As one can surmise the 62 mpg was driving in a "fuel miser mode" mentality. Truthfully watching paint dry in comparison was like a BLOOD sport!
The other motive: while it is counter intuitive, ( someone else posted it) ; but you actually save fuel "briskly accelerating to your so called "cruising speed" than so called meandering UP to it. The fellow with the scan gauge can easily verify this.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Tried it both ways, with many different vehicles.
Easy acceleration wins every time, for me!
Seems one of the rules in the "Tips for better mileage" articles is accelerate gently.
Kip
in an automatic, it means you would ALLOW the car to shift as soon as IT WANTS TO, rather than holding down the pedal longer (which effectively raises the shift point). In older non-ECT automatics, a slight backing off the gas would let it upshift, and then easing the pedal there would keep it there until the next shift point came. If you were good you could pretty much force the trans to shift up or down anytime you wanted.
Some car makers used to put a "Economy-Power" switch (on automatics) to let you select. "Power" simply raised the shift point towards the top end, "Econ" just forced the shift a bit lower in the range. It worked well but was easily over-ridden by foot action.
Shifting (or allowing it to shift in the case of an auto) as soon as possible that is what will get you better mileage.
Of topic, since I drive other makes and models, I drive each according to their designs (differently). It is a bit like getting on a bicycle, you sort of remember it.
My impression is that the lower acceleration the better but haven't paid much attention as there are no stop lights in my area. Usually not much traffic either. I did notice in Tucson, Az with lots of max acceleration and waits for several traffic light changes during rush hours the milage seemed to be heading southwards of 30 mpg.