Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Honda Civic Real World MPG

1343537394042

Comments

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Yes this is an interesting design anomoly. We have taken longer road trips San Jose, CA to Santa Barbara/Los Angeles and have gotten virtually the same mpg 38-42 mpg as a shorter distance commute (28 miles each way) @ 70-80 mph.
  • baccus49baccus49 Member Posts: 60
    My 1995 Honda Civic EX 1.6L DOHC VTEC Automatic is rated for 29 MPG combined on the old ratings and 26 MPG on the new 2008 ratings. I achieve a 33 MPG on a 90 day average. MPG is tracked on 4 different sites and I would consider myself a conservative hypermiler. Tire pressure is at max sidewell. I typically drive the speed limit which is 65 MPH or sometimes 55-60 depending on traffic. I've hit 40 MPG on 4 occasions and have had several tanks above 35. If you're not getting the MPG on the new 2008 ratings you're doing something wrong. Newer Civics than mine get better gas mileage so you should be beating my MPG. The older civics such as the Civic VX gets 40+ MPG.
  • kenlwkenlw Member Posts: 190
    i believe the newer civic automatics have a torque converter lockup that eliminates TC slip at steady speeds. This will have a significant impact on highway mileage on an auto.

    Then, if the gearing is actually taller (i think it is) than the manual, the auto's highway mileage could easily be better.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Commute mpg range has for the life of the car (74,000 miles) been between 38-42 mph. In the same commute and NOW with two people (instead of one) it has settled into 40 mpg. (middle of the range: 38,39,40 41,42.) Researching msg # 1416, current conditions put (1.24,+2.11)=3.35% folks reporting better mpg. I would swag the Civic is doing the job for which it was designed (and our intended use: plain jane commute) pretty well. While we drive (hopefully safely) for the conditions, we do no real fuel hypermileage techniques. (unless you can call poor rush hour traffic a hyper mileage situation)
  • hammer00hammer00 Member Posts: 4
    Transmissions
    5-Speed Manual Transmission Gear Ratios
    1st: 3.143
    2nd: 1.870
    3rd: 1.235
    4th: 0.949
    5th: 0.727
    Reverse: 3.308
    Final Drive: 4.290

    Compact 5-Speed Automatic Transmission Gear Ratios
    1st: 2.666
    2nd: 1.534
    3rd: 1.022
    4th: 0.721
    5th: 0.525
    Reverse: 1.957
    Final Drive: 4.440
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    The thing that really goes unsaid in this comparison is the greater parasitic drag using the automatic transmission. I would swag that not many folks put their Civics (auto vs manual) on dyno machines to really quantify the difference. While this may or may not be true for this particular model, on Corvette web sites, parasitic drag percentages are 11% manual/ 20% automatic or app 9% greater drag. (less mpg would be one result)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I should probably put in the most germane portion. The greater parasitic drag (11%-20%=)9% (aka auto vs manual) results in app 1-3 mpg differences.

    The 6 speed manual Z06 which has 10% more aggressive gearing (than other 6 speed manual Corvettes) has been estimated and EPA rated)loses app 1-2 mpg.

    (differences on stated gears are 1st gear 17.9% ,2nd gear 22% ,3 rd gear 21% ,4 th gear 32% ,5th gear 39%,

    (over other Corvette manual transmission gearing, the stable variable being parasitic drag on 6 speed vs 6 speed is app the same)

    So for example all my MPG results are with with a 4 speed auto. (5 speed manual was available) This 4 speed automatic has an interesting time deciding what gear it wants to upshift down shift to/ in. I had to overcome this situation by just letting it decide. If you press the accelerator to overcome it, you will lose 1-2 mpg , but I digress. So if you are all not totally glazed over by now:

    "Transmission
    5-Speed Manual Transmission Gear Ratios
    1st: 3.462
    2nd: 1.870
    3rd: 1.241
    4th: 0.970
    5th: 0.711
    Reverse: 3.231
    Final Drive: 4.111

    4-Speed Automatic Transmission Gear Ratios
    1st: 2.722
    2nd: 1.516
    3rd: 0.975
    4th: 0.674
    Reverse: 1.955
    Final Drive: 4.067 "


    One can do the math and see it takes almost MASSIVE gearing differences to over come the inherent GREATER parasitic drag of the automatic (not to mention the extra (5th) gear.

    So while this may or may not matter, acceleration and so called performance might be way more sluggish with the automatic.
  • cjhepburncjhepburn Member Posts: 12
    I just finished my relaxed and more efficient driving style test. I drove 465.2 miles and filled with 11.589 Gallons for 40.142 MPG. Keep in mind that even Prius drivers were passing me. At the start of the tank I was driving 65-72 and toward the end of the tank I slowed to 63-68. I think it will do better after the first oil change.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    >"I just finished my relaxed and more efficient driving style test"

    Good job ! :shades:

    That over 10% increase in mileage probably won't make a difference in whether or not you eat, but it can bring along a great sense of satisfaction. You also kicked the crap out of the EPA estimates as well as what the "Average" driver gets!
    You are above and better than average.

    Also contrary to belief of many people on these forums, you didn't get rear ended by a school bus. ;)

    Interesting to see folks speak of how they achieved really excellent mileage and many keep logs of every drop of gas and how it was used. I do that.

    I don't recall anyone ever asking me, "How many cars did you pass last week" or "How may times did you red line the engine", or "How close can you tail gate", or "How do you stay alive driving the posted speed limits" ?

    They do ask, what kind of mileage I get. I tell them the average mileage for local driving and the mileage for road trips. Not unusual to hear, "I don't believe that" or
    "But I thought they got a lot less than that"!

    Then it is time to show them the "Book" . :)

    Kip
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    I have always "bashed" those who posted 40 mpg and above fuel economy numbers for the 2006-07-08 Civic. We own an 06 EX sedan automatic. Well, I recently purchased a Scan Gauge and have seen averages well over 40 mpg for individual highway trips. My wife reported 44.1 for one leg of a 130 mile round trip to Harrisburg Pa via I-81 @ 65 mph. The return trip yielded just over 40. So I guess I am a convert. The ScanGuage is a wonderful "tool" to help maximize fuel economy.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I guess you were jealous before.... and now you know how!!! So you can eat crow and apologize.... or do you need an (apologetic) scan gauge for that too? ;)
  • cjhepburncjhepburn Member Posts: 12
    I am on the fence as to getting a scanguage. If it were $99, I would arleady have one. Does a scanguage do anything for your driving style that you don't intuitively know already?
    I've proven to my car that it can do 40MPG. I know I could limit the speed to 60-65 and accelerate even slower but I don't need scanguage to show me that. Maybe real time data just drives that point home.
    If I can get it up to 44 MPG without having Prius drivers flip me off as they pass using scanguage then the return on investment is about 27500 miles @ $2.549Gallon. Is it worth it?
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Winks aside, some of what you might know intuitively MAY be incorrect: or even if you know it, you may NOT be applying what you know correctly. The other is that different (gasser) cars might have different characteristics and a scan gauge can make it easier to know and apply the differences. So in effect the scan gauge is a real time, almost like a bio feedback device.

    So for example, if I were to try some to all hypermileage techniques ( trying to consistently get past 42 mpg) on the Civic gasser (and past 62 mpg on a VW Jetta TDI) it will make the game easier with a scan gauge.
  • cjhepburncjhepburn Member Posts: 12
    Do you have an example of what may be a misconception of attaining higher fuel economy? Drive slower, accelerate slower, anticipate distant slowdowns and stops, and (although I don' t do this) draft the truck in front of you are a few of things that are intuitive to me.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Here are some questions, no particular order that a scan gauge can answer REAL TIME. What do you do when the automatic gear keeps upshifting/downshifting? What is the rpm when max torque comes on. What are the ideal rpms and torque for best fuel mileage? Is it the same or different for automatic/manual? What is the best load to drive at? Do you accelerate slowly or briskly for the best mpg? What is the best way to climb a long grade? Does your vehicle have little or no fuel draw on a long downgrade? The observable product or goal for example would be mpg.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    Good Post! :)
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    Since this tool (ScanGuage) is my new toy and since it monitors all engine and probably automatic transmission management computers as well it has quite a few read-outs and parameters that I probably won't investigate e.g. whether the car is operating in "open or closed" loop and intake temperature but will probably concentrate on fuel economy and related readings e.g. fuel to empty, distance to empty, average fuel economy etc. Yeah, I know this type of information is available as standard equipment on various vehicles but not Honda. Yes, one can speculate on fuel economy and even drag out the calculator and figure out the average for the tank (within reason unless math isn't your strong point) but this piece of equipment can inform you instantly and constantly allowing you to make small changes (if you wish) in real time and see real time increases or decreases in fuel economy. Plus for me it makes me conscious of my driving techniques at all times not just at fill up time when economy seems to be too low but wait!!! Oh, yeah now I remember "flooring it" or running it up to 100 mph in a fit of road rage. It sure is useful for us....
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Yeah, I know this type of information is available as standard equipment on various vehicles but not Honda

    Out of curiousity, are there low-end compacts out there that offer this as standard? If there are I really don't know about 'em, but would like to. :) I know the CR-V has this, as well as the new Accord, I just didn't know the $15k-$20k compact/subcompact market had this feature "standardized" yet.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    It is almost sad (but funny to say this) but for want of a less than 20 dollar computer option (cost to the oem) people do not get the kind of mileage a particular vehicle is capable, given one's desire. Of course it is available on higher end cars, sans two things 1 higher end car buyers are really not as fuel conscious 2. the ones that do have them are usually higher performance cars.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    I've had two econo-box rentals in the last few months... a Chevy Cobalt and a Corolla. Both had pretty decent trip computers with mpg, avg. speed, etc. Honda is always a little stingy on features. I didn't even get a trip computer in my $30,000+ Odyssey...you had to go to the top-end model to get that, along with auto headlamps and auto doorlocks :confuse: Hey, my '07 Civic had auto door locks at half the price.....
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    Yeah, there are some but other than the Elantra (it does) I cannot tell you which ones do. Others have indicated the Corolla and Chevy Cobalt have this feature as well.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Thanks for the reply. I haven't been in any other new compacts lately. I've test driven the new Accord, Altima, and 6, but haven't been in the above mentioned vehicles in awhile.
  • kenlwkenlw Member Posts: 190
    heck, our 93 chrysler minivan had an excellent trip computer: instant mpg, ave mpg, miles to empty, compass....... dumped it at 120k miles, the computer was about the only thing that hadn't been replaced under extended waranty.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    New tires will crash mpg anywhere from 1-6 mpg. I have new tires and alignment and swag I will lose 1-2 mpg (or from 38-42 mpg) , so the range will now be between 36-41 mpg for a while.
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    Keep in mind though that although I now believe the Civic (at least the 2006/07/08 generation) can and will obtain fuel economy north of 40 mpg on specific or individual trips using gas saving techniques and speeds on highway drives I still don't necessarily buy the claims of ....say, 41 mpg AVERAGES. In order to boost an average to that lofty number the high # would have to be stellar and the low would have to be, well, stellar too. This might be more than I am willing to concede.
    Somewhat contrite ;)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    So you DO need another (apologetic) scan gauge !? ;) The truth is the range of 38-42 was with no fuel miser concerns. AND we are doing it with one less gear and an older model. It is strictly, fill the tank, write down the figures, do the math- report!! It is a no brainer to start to implement some fuel miser techniques. It is truly NOT rocket science, other than we don't do so bad NOT taking any measures. We are impressed that we cut the actual commute miles (for 2 persons) literally in half by sharing the commute.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    I believe a scan gauge would help, if we use it properly.

    For example: Most of the local speed limits in our area are 45 mph. Our Pilot AT won't shift into 5th and OD until 50 mpg. So should I speed up and allow the shift for slower engine RPM with more air resistance and the engine possibly not really in a "sweet spot"? Or stay at the 45mph speed in 4th gear with less air drag and possibly a bit less stress on the engine, etc.?

    Same would be true with a MT car, especially on hills. Is it better to keep it in a higher gear with the throttle closer to the floor, or drop down a gear and use less throttle although the injectors are firing more frequently but with less volume?

    On the road, we have, at times, experienced about the same or better mileage at a slightly higher speed. Is it because the tranny downshifted less on the hills? Or the engine had a bit more power to deal with some other condition(s).

    What we don't know is: How the road surface, elevation, prevailing wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, humidity, load, and so forth were affecting the mileage on that particular day and trip. We also don't know where the engines "Sweet Spot" is. Is it 1800 rpm, 1900 rpm, or more or less?

    I fill the tank the same way every time. Put the nozzle in as far as it will go and set it on the slowest setting. When it clicks off , wait a few seconds and gently squeeze until it clicks off a second time and stop. I try to use the same pump every time, although that is not an option on the road. Problem is that the tilt of the car will dictate how much fuel the tank will take. Also, how well is the pump calibrated. 8 gallons to drive 300 miles is 37.5 mph. But 9 gallons for the same distance is 33.3 mpg.

    If we were driving in a vacuum on flat smooth roads all the time, we could quickly figure the best way. But we have the real world to deal with.

    We can develop our own Hypothesis, but the Scan Gauge will instantly reveal which speed and gear actually gets the better mileage, under present conditions. :)

    Kip
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Keep down this kind of path and you will qualify to be Wayne Gerdes' wing man/woman. ;)
  • kenlwkenlw Member Posts: 190
    at 20k miles/yr; $3/gal; the annual savings of 38mpg over 35 mpg is $135. at $2.50/g it's a whopping $112/year savings.

    I hope the scangage costs less than that.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Well the scan gauge and hypermiling has always been another game. I am sure there is some education content, or some side story like Wayne's. Some folks like the hot cars. Others like to see how much over EPA they can do.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    Who is Wayne Gerdes ?

    Kip
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    ."at 20k miles/yr; $3/gal; the annual savings of 38mpg over 35 mpg is $135. at $2.50/g it's a whopping $112/year savings.
    I hope the scangage costs less than that. "


    I don't personally own a Scan Gauge or other such device yet, but have seriously considered getting one. Last time I checked , a few months ago, it seems they were in the $150 range. Using your numbers, it would pay for itself in about 1 1/2 years.

    To go a little farther: If we could save that $112 a year on every "Necessary" item, it could save a considerable amount of money in a years time. Consider:

    Automobile fuel, automobile fuel for the 2nd car, Health insurance, Life insurance, Car insurance, Groceries, Electricity, Heating oil/ natural gas, Income tax, eating out, movies, other entertainment, cable or dish, cell phone, telephone, internet connection, automotive maintenance, yard/lawn care, miscelanious purchases, home maintenance, clothing, and drug store items.

    Those are 22 items that quickly come to mind. At $112 each the savings would be $2464 yearly. Still not overwhelming, but considerable.

    As Ruking pointed out, different folks enjoy beating different systems. One person may enjoy shaving as many minutes as possible off commute times, while another enjoys using as little fuel as possible for the commute.

    I don't personally understand why anyone would buy an "Economy" car and not want to benefit as much economy out of it as possible. But that is me. Your mileage may vary! ;)

    Kip
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    link title

    The nexus is that Wayne Gerdes used to post here on www.edmunds.com. He is of the 59 mpg on a Honda Accord fame. ;) :shades:
  • kenlwkenlw Member Posts: 190
    Kip, if you want to have that as a hobby, go ahead and enjoy it, no one can criticize you. But if you insist it's a "investment", well, let's just say that you should keep it as an enjoyable hobby.

    And using your analogy, if each of those $112 /yr savings COST you $150, would you still do it? Technically, the analogy is a bit of a stretch to those of us who do return on investment calculations on a regular basis.

    As a hobby, it's great.

    Trust me, I was there in the 80s. My 81 GLC consistently got over 45 hwy mpg. It was fun to see how much I could squeeze out of it.

    But then I got another hobby I enjoyed more.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    >"And using your analogy, if each of those $112 /yr savings COST you $150, would you still do it? Technically, the analogy is a bit of a stretch to those of us who do return on investment calculations on a regular basis"

    To answer your question, yes I will gladly spend $150 once to save $112 each and every year. In 1.5 years the money is recovered and the savings go on year after year. Savings may even increase yearly if prices rise.

    I'm very interested to know how that is a "stretch". :)

    "But if you insist it's a "investment", well, let's just say that you should keep it as an enjoyable hobby."

    I have never been great at math. So need your help in understanding your logic.

    Thanks,
    Kip
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    "New tires will crash mpg anywhere from 1-6 mpg. I have new tires and alignment and swag I will lose 1-2 mpg (or from 38-42 mpg) , so the range will now be between 36-41 mpg for a while. "

    First tank full after the above quote, 38.5 mpg (354 miles/9.2 gal) . So I (still) swag (all things being equal) a new tire set loss of app 1.5 mpg ( getting app 40 mpg before tire set swap and alignment) . The first tank came almost dead in the middle of my original projection. We shall see what another 3 tank fulls will mike out to be.
  • cjhepburncjhepburn Member Posts: 12
    That sounds like the loss is just the calculated MPG from the tire getting slightly larger. The actual MPG is probably very close to what you had before the new set of tires.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    On a practical level there is a portion yes...BUT mostly NO! The actual mileage was the one that was actually posted.

    So for example in no particular order and no particular % measurements( other than the gross mpg measure)

    1. yes the tires are larger aka (new) 10/32 vs (old) 3/32 or 7/32 MORE (could have run @ least 1/32 in more or 10,614 miles . :shades:
    2. (the past 2) alignments had no measurable effect on mpg. May it have affected these new tires?... maybe......
    3. the car on the old oem tires were run up to 90 mph
    4. in contrast, break in protocols were followed for the new rubber (NTE 60 mph for 300 miles, nte 65 mpg for another 200 (for 500 miles)
    5. no hard braking (we hardly use the brakes and do not brake hard normally except for emergencies- no emergencies)
    6. other than a 100 mile initial "bed in", test drive (less than 60 mph) the vehicle was put into the normal plain jane 2 person daily commute.
    7. I will do one deviation to get back on round numbers (aka 10,000 mile rotation intervals) and that is to rotate @ 5700 miles to get back on the 10,000 miles round numbers rotation.
    8. I do have the figures when the old oem tires were new, BUT I was totally into the engine (break in oil, etc.,) and suspension, brakes, etc., break in period. But do not have any idea (again) what %'s go to each factor.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    "That sounds like the loss is just the calculated MPG from the tire getting slightly larger. The actual MPG is probably very close to what you had before the new set of tires."

    I agree new thicker tread will affect "Calculated" mileage. How much is hard to say.

    The new and slightly larger diameter tire, due to new tread and sidewalls, will need to rotate fewer times to go a given distance. The odometer is reading something that is rotating.

    It doesn't see as many rotations with the new tires as with the old ones. Therefore it doesn't register as many miles with the new tires, although they went just as far.

    Another consideration would be the weight of the old vs new. Heavier tires/wheels are harder to turn and burn more fuel.

    So, "REAL WORLD" , is the odometer more accurate with old tires or new tires? :)

    Kip
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    The 2nd tank fill up micro'd out to 37 mpg. Again, it is within the predicted (loss-1/2 mpg) range. (38-42 range)

    ..."So, "REAL WORLD" , is the odometer more accurate with old tires or new tires?"...

    Given the last two tank fill ups, I would say the odometer is accurate with old tires and new tires! :lemon:

    I am no expert with weights and measures compliance, but I am sure one's local DMV web site will have something to say about the issue/topic.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    link title

    Above is a link to the gov fuel economy

    04 Honda Civic (7 vehicles)

    AVG: 32..4 mpg

    Range: 28-37 mpg
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    The survey linked in msg #1416 has way more of a population and better detail, even as most folks would tend to give greater credibility to a (dot). GOV web site. Far and away the majority (21.39% of 228/1066 sample) report between 27-30 mpg
  • kenlwkenlw Member Posts: 190
    7 vehicles?

    this is not in any way, shape or form a significant enough population from which to draw any conclusions whatsoever. The variance in the range alone is >30%, that is a red flag in anyone's book that the trial population is inadequate for anything other than to determine gross anomalies.
  • cuysecocuyseco Member Posts: 45
    I bought my Civic 08 last september. I am getting 34 MPG..Is that ok?? Will it improve later??

    Thanks
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    According to the odometer, we have put on app 1000 miles on the Civic's "new" tires. Seeming the alignment shows no weird wear. We were able to keep the first 300 miles under 60 mph, and the second 200 miles under 65 mph. In my mind, we are cleared up to normal speeds. I will report the 3rd tank full mpg (so far 38.5, 37 mpg) . Two deviations from the original tires: 1. UTOQ ratings from 320 to 700. 2. R rating to T rating. The other drivers have notice NO differences but they are used to paying absolutely NO attention to these things. I like the way it feels. So now we have 73,300 miles to see if the new ones will last as long as the "old tires". The swag is at least 150,000 miles, but I'd be happy with 120,000 miles. ;) :shades: Hopefully by then newer latest and greatest tires will make its mark on www.tirerack.com. ;) :shades:
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    In the process of checking and writing about mpg after tire changing, I discovered that after 4 years and 7 mos, the passenger side windshield wiper blade needs changing due to the beginnings of a wiper blade tear. :lemon: ;)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    There is not enough information to provide an educated SWAG. Specifically you need to put factors/variables into contexts. Shooting from the hip, maybe, albeit slightly.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    The figures are in and the 3rd tank full is @36 mpg.

    So as a range, new tires have crashed (mine) mpg 1.5 to 2 mpg per gal: old tires 38-40 mpg new tires 36-38.5. Again far from correlated but one anecdotal data point.

    Old tires: Dunlop SP20 FE, UTOQ 320, New tires: Toyo 800 Ultra.UTOQ 700. 74,300 miles is the number to beat!
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Correction: the 3rd tank full was 37 mpg.

    So as a range (corrected) new tires have crashed (mine) mpg 1 to 1.5 mpg: old tires 38-40 mpg, new tires 37-38.5.
  • vitakhvitakh Member Posts: 5
    About a month ago I have bought a new Civic 08 coupe. It has 500 miles now and makes less than 21 mpg in city. I am trying to drive stingy, minimizing the break usage.

    Is this millage low enough to complain to the dealer? What may be the problem?
Sign In or Register to comment.