Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to learn more!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
As mentioned, idling burns a lot of fuel especially with the defroster (A/C)running. Price you pay for comfor/convenience, you just can't expect the mpg to be as good.
Yes it should to inevitably is the answer to your first question.
To your second question, winter driving (aka inclement weather) has an enormously brutal effect on the mileage and on the car.
1. Check air pressure in the tyres. I got a low pressure alert but the dealer asked me to ignore it since inclement weather made the alert come on at odd times. I checked and found that the car tyres were significantly under-inflated.
2. Almost eliminated the remote-ignition feature. Now that I know the mileage, I might start using it once again
3. Avoided the defrost button, instead burnt a few calories scraping the ice off the car using a scraper
4. Weather also played it's part. It did not snow the last week and a half and the temperatures were in the teens to mid twenties (F) which is much better than the sub zero arctic weather the last time around
5. Since I moved homes, bulk of my driving (~90%) has been on the freeways where I average 55~60 MPH and the average drive time is > 25 mins
Hope that summer and the end of the break-in period improves mileage further.
Thanks and Regards
Prior to topping up with that 3.8 gallons in philly, i'd driven from the dealership in germantown to baltimore, driven around baltimore city couple days, then down route 40 and 95 to mt laurel,NJ and then to hillside, new jersey all the way up north jersey where i had to drive in the snow and back to mt laurel, then to cherry hill and back to mt laurel and then i decided to fill up in philly on my way back to baltimore and i only needed 3.8gallons. One 1 or 2 occasions when it was super icy and raining ice, i drove in D3 which is supposed to eat up more gas. otherwise, i drove in D4 all the time.
i kinda wanted to see the exact miles i got but once the bars on my gas guage got to 2 bars and the light came on, i figured it's time to fill up.
So 17 gallons got me 700miles, with a little bit left in the tank when the light came on to refill. My 2000 civic got me an average of 33-35mpg, most of which was highway.
The 09 beats that. i really hope it stays up this way or gets better in the summer when the weather gets better and don't have to warm up my car like crazy before driving. I was beating myself up for buying a new car when my old civic is still in perfect condition but the mileage the 09 gives makes me feel better now. i was expecting to get 35mpg like my 2000 civic.
oh, i have to add i only warm up my car for ab out 7-10minutes then leave the lot when i know i'll hit the red light just when i get out of the parking lot so i can sit there for 30more seconds.
I asked both mechanics to check and see if anything else was out of joint, and neither came up with anything. All regular maintenance has been taken care of, so it's not anything like the air filter, etc.
Any suggestions??
I also explained to both mechanics what had happened, told them about the headlamp alignment (which was only the bulbs, not the actually headlights) and asked them to take a look to see if anything else needed fixing. Neither one said they'd found anything - and I've never known a mechanic to not find work that needed to be done when invited to do so.
Both tires have been replaced. The face of one rim was dented, but it didn't affect the cylinder. My driving, if anything, is more conducive to better mileage now than before the incident (approx 80 percent was city driving before, now it's more like 20). Before the incident, I could vary speeds on the highway between 75 and 85 and get 39+ mpg. Now I peg it at 75 on cruise and get closer to 33-34.
So I guess my question is, since neither mechanic has found anything obvious, has anyone else either run into this issue and found a non-obvious solution, or can someone think of something non-obvious that I could ask a mechanic to check out that might be causing it? :confuse:
That be some real good mileage for that speed Amazing mileage for those speeds.
>" Now I peg it at 75 on cruise and get closer to 33-34."
EPA Rating for Civic hyway is 29-36, depending on year, model, and transmission type. Seems to me the road speed for their test is 70.
And you are matching or bettering EPA , while driving at higher speeds. Probably on winter fuel blends.
Possibly the accident jarred your speedometer/odometer, or whatever, back into reality.
Not at all unusual for some people to better EPA, and sometimes by a good amount, with real good driving techniques. But very unusual to do it at 75-85 mph.
Seems to me like your car is a winner! :shades:
Kip
Upshot: (this is a tad counter intuitive to your reasoning... but..) go BACK to the WAY you have been driving (but now is 80% highway). You will almost instantly increase your mpg.
That (your old way) is the WAY we (4 drivers) drive the automatic Civic. Indeed we clock 38-42 mpg in a daily commute. Road trip mpg has been as high as 42 mpg (target 75 mph, with bursts to 80-85 mph). This Civic is pushing 80,000 miles. We run 20,000 miles oil and oil filter change intervals and double the FRAM air filter interval. We rarely use cruise control.
We just experienced a 2 mpg drop, but I swag it to 2 reasons:
1. winter blend RUG
2. break in of new tires
3. (actually 2b.) much higher tread rating (320 UTOQ vs 700)
(I hate new tires from an mpg perspective) (the oem tires gave up the ghost @ 74,300 miles)
I suspect after the first 10,000 miles (oem recommended rotation interval) we will get back to the low 38 mpg figure
There are a host of reasons, but the easiest one is drive the Civic how it was designed to be driven: (aka designed and optimized in LA, CA) slightly to moderately aggressively.
Also take a look at msg #1416 to see how you fit into the survey of reported mpg statistics. I think you will find you are doing rather well in both mpg scenarios. However higher mpg is always the "brass ring" if you will. All the best and let us know what you decide to do and the results.
Actually our Civic came without CC !! @ the time it was an $1,100 (? this was 5 years ago) option requiring power door locks. $1,100 @ 2.11 for RUG will buy 521 gals. @ 38 mpg that is 19,810 miles of commuting.
So to get onto the so called "interconnectedness" of things..... Since majority of miles is COMMUTING (driver only), is it better to buy RUG (used 24/7 when running?) or CC ( WHO uses CC in a bumper to bumper commute?? ) and/or power door locks (for one person) !!??
Another upside? Hard to have CC problems with...NO cc? Hard to have POWER window issues with no power? Didn't have to pay the 8.25 % tax on the option, so 90.75 buys 43 gals of RUG or 1634 MORE miles of commuting.
(Regular Unleaded Gas, I imagine).
So for example, IF you got CC under the mistaken notion that it will help you save fuel, aka get better fuel mileage, the operative question would be how many SAVED miles (under cruise control) would it take ot break even on the purchase price of CC? Now you could NOT get CC without power windows @ $1,100.... :surprise:
Now I happen to know that what you get as fuel mileage, not many people and more importantly % of folks report as good as fuel mileage as YOU or I. So actually the NON CC folks (YOU and I for example) are reporting the higher fuel MPG (savings) and they didnt speed 1,100 extra for the option !!?? aka we don't have the option!!???
So to stay on topic , Honda Civic. The Civic did need a (E) emergency brake adjustment at 79,000 miles? 9-10 clicks instead of 6-7 as per shop manual. I also had to get new tires @ 74,300 miles. I also got an alignment shortly after the new tires were installed. After app 4/4.5 years, the windshield wipers after sitting out in the environs 24/7, did need changing. They still did the wiper gig well, but a portion of the WW blades started to tear so....
Basically crappy gas with ethanol used in various EPA mandated regions of the country that hurts your fuel mileage but is supposed to be better for the environment. Once again gov't logic that using more gas is better for the environment...
And before any lackeys from the EPA try and tell me that it doesn't I will call BS. My 1993 Buick Century would get 33-34 mpg using non-RUG and I was lucky to get 28-29 using RUG.
Even in my 2008 Lancer ES, I get 2-3 mpg less using RUG.
In my 2001 Suzuki Bandit 600cc 4 cyc with no electronics (where I would ride 20 miles out of my way to get non-RUG) I could get 55 mpg compared to 40 with RUG and a severe drop in performance using that crappy [non-permissible content removed] cost more RUG
:mad:
Interesting that the 10% Ethanol Blend seems to result somewhere in the 10% range reduction in mileage, according to posts on these forums.
It is supposed to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce emissions. .
Real world seems to indicate, that to drive a given distance, we still use the same amount of "Dino" fuel plus the ethanol.
Example: A car averaging 30 mpg on straight Dino fuel would use 10 gallons to go 300 miles.
If the mileage is reduced 10% with ethanol blend, the car would drop to 27 mpg.
The 300 miles would require 11.11 gallons of the blended fuel.
90% of that 11.11 gallons of blend, or 9.9999 gallons, is dino. Therefore 10 gallons of dino is still required to go the 300 miles. And we bought 1.11 extra gallons of "Blend". That does absolutely nothing to help emissions or reduce dependence on oil. Still used 10 gallons of Dino with it's emissions, Plus the emissions from the Ethanol. Actually to manufacture the ethanol has consequences of it's own when we consider the fuel required to plant and harvest the crops. Fuel required to haul the crop to the refinery, and more fuel to process the crop into ethanol. The refining process also uses about 10 gallons (or more) of water for every 1 gallon of finished product. Plus the possible necessity to irrigate the crops to grow. Then more energy is used to "Blend" the ethanol to the dino. All the extra energy required for producing the ethanol creates it's own emissions.
While it is true that a gallon of 100% Ethanol produces less emissions than a gallon of dino, the Ethanol contains much less energy and requires more of it to go the distance. Therefore the emissions from the tail pipe are near the same for the same distance traveled. We just get to pay for a lot more of it.
The public is being fed a load of crap concerning ethanol.
Kip
We stayed around 70 MPH (we were a convoy of 3 cars), with the cruise control set. I got 37 MPG, while my 2006 Accord (2.4L I4, Automatic) got 35 MPG while being driven by my girlfriend. It's amazing (the Accord) on the highway, but the Civic beats it by a good 5 MPG around town.
My car fuel log is out on ecomodder.com ("CuteNiceButNotTheSame"), and the *current* totals are:
* Fuel economy - lifetime: 39.17 mpg (US)
* Fuel economy - last 3 fills: 38.6 mpg (US)
* Fuel economy - 90 days: 37.11 mpg (US)
In about the past week or two my ScanGaugeII has shown 40+ for various trips (tonight's highway ride 35 miles showed 41.1mpg--I've seen 44mpg recently on a similar trip). I do basic hypermiling techniques and rarely use cruise control. I don't have a lot of junk in the trunk and lost 60 lbs. out of my own junky trunk a few years back. :-)
Over the winter the mileage plummeted down to around 36-38, though. The mileage has improved into the 39mpg range recently, possibly due to the warmer weather, and maybe they've changed the gas over to summer formulation (don't know). I expect it to get back into the 41mpg range again (mostly highway). It will be interesting to see if it does more now that it has 19,000 miles on it, but I'll settle for 40+. :-)
...kl...
Some unaccounted for variables: 1. the 80,000 miles maintenance interval was done (late) , to include, 2. OCI @22,000 miles, a. Mobil One 0w20 b. oil filter change to a WalMart SuperTech. 3. tire rotation.
I am thinking of downsizing to a Civic. There is a certified-pre-owned '08 Sedan EX-L automatic for sale nearby with 13k on the clock. Will this car get 40 MPG with my type of driving? Will a manual transmission do any better?
Thanks,
Eric
Actually would need some more information as the mileage you state seems to indicate an average of 3.47 days per week. Another would be, what if you personally are not able to GET 40 mpg (without some change/s in driving behavior and/or sacrifice)
You're taking a big downsize in power, quietness, and comfort to get that though. The Fusion is a very nice vehicle.
I just figured I'd get some feedback before I decide.
Thanks,
Eric
I'm a Honda guy... got three Accords in the driveway, and my folks have an 07 Civic EX and like it a lot - they have nearly 70k miles on it.
Have you driven the Civic yet?
I am one of those people that get bored after two years and want something else. I should not complain, the Fusion has not given me one ounce of trouble (knock on wood) and is really a great car - beats the '96 Accord I had by a mile.
Daily operating cost was my concern as is the fact the my wife has an '03 Odyssey with similar mileage and I don't want to replace both at one time.
Eric
So if you tend to get bored, I would as a min, just stay with the Fusion, as it has a 6 cyl vs 4 cyl Honda Civic which you are considering. In addition, Civic's are not anywhere near Accord's. Just from those perspectives, going from a 6 cyl can be seen as a HUGE let down in more than one issue, i.e., the Civic by your own admission (& my swag) would come in a distant 3rd place. In addtion, the Fusion seems to be fulfilling your expectations.
If it is just the "new car smell" a trip to the detailer for "the works" will be far cheaper !! Just keep going back when the smell wears off or needs to be renewed.
Here are a number of reasons why we are very pleased with the Honda Civic (04)
1. We ID'd it as a vehicle maximized for the application we needed it and secondarily wanted for (LA LA Land type commute
2. According to a larger survey (msg #1416) we are logging a range of 38-42 in the 54 miles R/T commute. Basically, up to 97/100 report lower fuel mileage
3. We are "killing two birds with one stone" so to speak in that the mileage is requirement is actually 29,000 it remains @14,xxx miles. So this saves a huge expenditure for another car and the additional miles
4. vehicle was purchased way below invoice and actually I have come to find out, below dealer's cost
5. resale value remains very high.
However there are compromises. The car we substituted the Civic was getting 48-52 mpg for the same commute. Tired of shifting was the stated excuse.
The dealers here are willing to cut about 16% off MSRP for an Odyssey EX-L RES without even sitting down so I could replace my Ody with a better model.
Yes, I tend to make emotional decisions on vehicle purchases. I've had a license for 17 years and I believe I've owned 14 cars (this is my first new one though) so I don't keep them long. I just get bored but decided against leasing due to the amount of mileage I drive.
My thought was that I would be making a good move to downsize in the event fuel costs increase and I could save $500-$1,000 per year. It would still take 5-6 years at $4 per gallon to recoup the out of pocket costs for the newer car. On the flip side, I'd own a one year old car with 13k and warranty to 100k instead of a two year old car with 55k that is out of warranty.
Since you seem to go through a lot of cars, really the easiest way to compare cars (sometimes the comparisons are apples to oranges to pears) is to compare cost per mile driven. When you can see the numbers (projected, historic, actual, etc) you can use it as a better basis for comparison between a 4 cyl vs 6 cyl, etc, etc.
On April 10:
* Fuel economy - lifetime: 39.17 mpg (US)
* Fuel economy - last 3 fills: 38.6 mpg (US)
* Fuel economy - 90 days: 37.11 mpg (US
Now (June 8):
* Fuel economy - lifetime: 39.59 mpg (US)
* Fuel economy - last 3 fills: 44.32 mpg (US)
* Fuel economy - 90 days: 40.61 mpg (US)
This includes tonight's 46.45mpg tank that was a long drive with the car full of stuff (380 miles, mostly highway...plus one work commute (mostly highway)). I'm doubting it was 46+mpg and will say that part of it is from using a different gas station, but call it 44 or 45, which is still decent. Driving there was 43.18mpg---still respectable.
...kl...