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

1…78101213…42

Comments

  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    I agree you made a very good economic choice with your civic. The person I addressed stated that he understood my meaning re first year depreciation. You are the one that inferred other possibe meanings. Sometimes you just see the trees not the forest. Buy hey, nobody's perfect. Your posts are worth reading and many times have merit. Just my .02. Have a good day.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I understood it the same way, but I am sure you knew the discussion flow was coming! :) It was answered in that context.
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    No, I didn't know any "Discussion flow" as you call it was coming. I'm a person that usually doesn't "know" what is coming. I'm just having a little fun here and am not personally invested in my posts.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Most new cars get better MPG with the increase of mileage - NOT HONDA - you lose MPG with more miles you put on the CIVIC from new.

    On what basis? I get a consistent 26-29 MPG in my 11 year old, 171k mile Accord. It hasn't changed since I got the car. I certainly hope you wouldn't make such a broad based statement on just one experience.
  • arebareb Member Posts: 1
    Actually the fine print says " Actual mileage will vary with options,driving conditions,driving habits and vehicle condition. Results reported to the EPA indicate that the Majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between.
    25 and 35 in the City
    34 and 46 on the Hwy

    Honda Civic EX 2206

    Im 64 yrs and drive like it, Have never got better than 25 in the city, Hwy is correct about 40 Mpg
    My other car a 1997 Jimmy V6 has EPA 17 City 22 Hwy, regularly get 16 city 24 hwy. Seems that Auto manufacturers have been fudging the # lately. ten to 15 years ago the mpg estimates were pretty close
  • ajbchoajbcho Member Posts: 44
    Did my regular Sunday fill-up. I fill up all our cars every Sunday to avoid stops during the week. For a change, I actually skipped last weeks fill-up, so it's been 2 weeks on the same tank (I don't drive much).
    Just for kicks, took a "Sunday" drive (hiway miles) this morning before I filled up to see if it would help with the average. Got the lowest mpg ever so far. 22.xx mpg, I usually just round up to the next number but it was a LOW 22.xx. Not happy at all. This is only 6 mpg better than my 1/2 ton V8 truck I replaced it with. Not sure what's going on, again I DON'T drive it like I stole it.
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    Johnpl: Let's get back to the low gas milege and see if we can figure out why your daughter is getting such poor gas mileage. 21.5 - 26 mpg is very low for a Civic unless you are doing all stop and go driving, short trips and below freezing temperatures.

    Please bear with me:

    What is the typical commute? stop signs? stop lights? highway (avg. speed)?
    How long is this commute?
    What is the weather like where you are?
    How many gallons of gas did she pump into the car and how miles was it between fill-ups?
    Parking brake is off?
    have your son and daughter switch cars for a tank?

    The reason i am asking these questions is to eliminate driver error and then we can concentrate on the car. She's almost due for an oil change, then you can address it with Honda at that point. They will definitely point the finger at your daughter first.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Seems that Auto manufacturers have been fudging the # lately. ten to 15 years ago the mpg estimates were pretty close

    The EPA sets the numbers areb, not the manufacturers. If anyone is fudging, it will be the EPA. Just pinpointing who should be blamed if anyone.
  • sandman46sandman46 Member Posts: 1,798
    The EPA figures are just estimates and nothing more, they are not an exact science! I never expected to see 30 mpg's in the city and I've not with my 20 miles daily stop and go commute. It varies between 25 and 28, which is on target with what the EPA sticker says. I haven't driven that much highway yet with only 5777 miles and 1 oil change.
    I don't think that Honda mislead me with their posted mileage figures, I knew they were just estimates going in. I seem to remember a few posts about class action stuff against Honda which seems totally without merit. If more folks drove under the exact conditions that the government guys did when coming up with these figures, I think the mileage numbers would be very close to those stated on the Mulruney sticker. I for one think the 1.8 liter engine is a sweet one with good torque up the power band. Not as good as our 2.3 Mazda engine but more than adequate for my commuter needs.
    This is my first Honda and definitely won't be my last. Am quite happy with my decision and after I get rid of the lame LX hubcaps & steelies (hopefully on Monday), I'll be a happier camper.

    The Sandman :)
  • ajbchoajbcho Member Posts: 44
    I think most of us understand the figures are estimates. In front of me is the actual sticker off my EX AT sedan. Here is what it reads on the bottom left hand corner of the fuel economy information.
    "ACTUAL MILEAGE will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits and vehicles condition.
    Results reported to EPA indicate that the majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between
    25 and 35 mpg in the city and between
    34 and 26 mpg on the highway"

    I'm assuming the EPA got the 30 city mpg and 40 highway mpg from taking (25 + 35) / 2 = 30 for city and (34 + 46) / 2 = 40 for highway. Looks to me like the EPA just took the worst and best figures and gave us average of the 2.

    Now, we all know most of us (the Internet community) are getting low to mid 20's city and low to mid 30's highway.
    With 1 or 2 stating they are getting over the estimates claimed. But who's the majority that the EPA states will get that range? Apparently not us.

    Not sure about anyone else, but I'm whining like my toddler about it because the past few cars and trucks I had, I actually got or exceeded the "estimates". Same routes and during my younger days I drove more aggressively.
    I think many bought the Civic for the sole reason of high mpg. If we were on an H2 board. I'd tell the whiner to STFU if one of them complained about the mileage they're getting.
  • mth2mth2 Member Posts: 25
    I recently read an editorial in Car and Driver, don't have the issue anymore, so just going by memory. Basically, it says that the EPA estimates for mpg have been out of whack for many years because:

    mpg figures are based on driving norms of 1960's and 1970's. That is, they base accelerating to highway speeds 0-60 taking 16 seconds.

    Also, assume highway speeds of approximately 40 mph.

    Now, if it takes you 16 seconds to get up to highway speeds these days, you are probably in a coma because you caused a 10 car pileup and got run over by an 18-wheeler.

    Ditto if you drive 40mph on the highway at any time except rush hour(s).

    This is just by memory, so don't kill the messenger here, but I think I'm pretty close.

    The other point of the editorial was that for cars with large engines, you should reduce current EPA mpg figures by 5-10%, and for smaller, economy type engines, probably 7-15%. See if those figures jive with your real world mpg. They are probably closer in most instances, but obviously not in all cases.

    Supposedly the new EPA estimates are going on window stickers for 2008 models. Of course, different manufacturers introduce their next year models at many different times. It will be interesting to see the window sticker mpg for 2008 Civic compared to this years, assuming all else stays the same or relatively the same from 2007 to 2008 model year.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I think what you have gleaned for practical application/s is/are pretty much on spot. There are a few things that might take some clarification.

    ..."Also, assume highway speeds of approximately 40 mph."...

    Actually the AVERAGE highway speeds have not changed all that much. Specifically it is closer to 45 but 40-45-50 mpg is more the reality. (I based this on the on board computers with GPS back up (triangulation))

    So for example, since we do a 27 mile daily one way commute, it is pretty easy to calculate the average speed during rush hour!? If some folks don't see this just ask!! Indeed the very same people who complain about too fast speeds on the freeway are the very same ones who complain about rush hour, which (oxymoronically) by definition IS a defacto speed limit!!???????????
  • rikrakrikrak Member Posts: 31
    I was just reading this, seems that the MPG judgement will shift in 2008. The Civic seems to still be a winner but these numbers a probably more true. I've got just about 1,000 miles, which I know is not much and I get like 28 mpg in mixed "real world" driving. I will be taking a 1200 mile jaunt all highway soon and will track that. The copy is a bit confusing but what it says is (auto) 2008 gets 26 City and 37 Highway which seems more normal.

    E.P.A. Classification: Subcompact Cars
    Mfr. Model Engine

    Honda Civic 1.8 4 Automatic (2007) MPG 30/ 40 Regular
    Honda Civic 1.8 4 Automatic (2008) MPG 26/ 37 Regular

    Best MPG: Subcompact Cars
    Mfr. Model Engine
    Size(L) # Cyl. Trans. 2007
    City 2007
    Hwy 2008
    City 2008
    Hwy Fuel
    Type
    Honda Civic 1.8 4 Automatic 30 40 26 37 Regular

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    If the 2008 figures are accurate as far as what "will be" then my real life experience seems to match the new numbers within reason...24 city 36 highway.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    In terms of real life, using the vehicles you have now, there would be no changes. If anything to avoid the confusion, they should go back to (say older Honda models and apply the new standard (compared with the old) to show it graphically. Indeed the new standards are anywhere from 5-20% less than the old. Hybrids showing the higher percentage decrease.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp

    Cosmo on the VW TDI thread posted that what I said was a done deal. Look at your "old " car with the new EPA estimates. :)
  • bobdroidbobdroid Member Posts: 1
    This thread seems to have been beaten to death, but I guess I'll chime in anyway. My Civic ('07 EX Coupe) with around 2700 miles on it has been averaging around 28 MPG, with a low of about 26.5 and a high of 33. Strangely, the highest 3 tanks so far have been the only ones I've run with the A/C on :confuse:. I do about an even mix of highway/city driving here in Southern California. Seems to be in line with the new EPA figures.

    By the way, has anyone seen a significant difference in mileage when using different oil? My previous car (02 Saturn L200) used to get about 3-4 MPG higher when high quality 5W30 was used in place of 10W30.
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    check your manual. I don't think your new car uses 10-w 30. I think it may use 5-20. I noticed a slight .5-1 mpg increase w/ mobil 1.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I also believe you are correct it is a 5w20 oil Honda/Ford specifications. I have read (but do not know for sure) the Civic SI uses 5w30.
  • russinmainerussinmaine Member Posts: 1
    My two cents worth: My wife and I have been driving our 06 LX in the South this winter. It just turned 15K. Best mpg: 282 miles on six gallons, which is 47 mpg. That was steady driving north in Alabama at 62 mph cuz she was accompanying our RV. From Knoxville to OK City we drove 900 miles at 70-75 and filled up twice at 42.5 mpg. I fill until the pump stops then add a click.
    Re oil: My Maine dealer strongly advocated Honda brand, yet I had oil changed in OK City and dealer wanted to use Valvoline. He agreed to use Honda but charged a few bucks more. Weird! When the 36K warranty ends I'm using Mobil 1, which has served me well for many years. I have it now in an 03 Town Car with 131K and a 99 F-250 with 161K and both engines use almost no oil and run perfectly. I change their oil and filter once a year.
    One more thing: We got a notice re Honda speedometer error. Anyone done the math to determine how that affects mileage reports? :)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Good for you both! My sense is that at 60 mph that what you have gotten was indeed reach able.

    I have triangulated the information off a portable GPS. The vehicles I have all happen to be dead on. Evidently the weights and measures statutes do not kick in.

    The settlement is ONLY an agreed upon (5%) percentage increase in the 36,000 mile warranty rather than the (better, for my .02 cents) specific and focused remedy: a full speedometer R/R and road test. I would have preferred a full R/R and test of a new speedometer. :) The remedy is really quite meaningless, which really might have been the over all point.

    (your Honda/Toyota, we will give our constituency a bone and spank your hand, now cry on CNBC to show the folks at home how much it hurts -6 million but 33% to the lawyers :)) Of course if you have had a catastrophic failure at 37,800 miles, you are in the money and in effect have (lost) won the lottery.

    ..."Honda has decided to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleges its odometers were racking up miles too fast. The automaker says odometers on some 6 million Hondas affected by the suit were accurate to within 3.75% on the high side. The NHTSA doesn't regulate odometer accuracy, and the only industry standard is a voluntary one set by the Society of Automotive Engineers that says odos should be within +/-4%. While the car's affected by the suit fall within that range, Honda recognized that its customers expected their odometers "would be based on zero," and they weren't.

    The settlement will lengthen the warranty mileage of affected vehicles by 5% and Honda will pay lease-mileage penalties incurred by owners, which is expected to cost the automaker around $6 million. If you own a 2002 to 2006 Honda or Acura bought between April 12, 2002 and November 7, 2006, then you're eligible for the benefits of the settlement.

    The lawsuit also prompted lawyers to test the odometer accuracy of other vehicles. It was found that on average domestic vehicles were nearly perfect in their odo accuracy, while Toyotas actually racked up fewer miles on the clock than they did in reality. Nissans, however, didn't fare as well, and a new class-action suit has been filed on behalf of Altima owners who say their odometers are counting the miles 2.5% to 3% faster than they should."...

    http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/19/odo-uh-oh-honda-extending-warranties-on-6-mil- - - - - lion-cars/
  • aaronr121aaronr121 Member Posts: 91
    I would be ecstatic with 28 mpg and a SI. We have a 98 VW Beetle 2.0 (gas, non-turbo) and that averages 29-30 mpg combined. It's nearly as good as that and has a lot more power (VW, 110hp) and way more features, plus 4 doors.
  • barrnonebarrnone Member Posts: 21
    As one who is unhappy with the gas mileage I'm getting with my 2006 Civic EX Sedan (AT), I happened to check Consumer Reports to see what they said about expected MPG for the car. I've been averaging probably around 24 over the winter (this is in South Jersey near Philly), with around a 30/70 highway/local split (my local driving is suburbs). For the record, my highway mostly consists of 3-5 mile jaunts up and down route 295, not long stretches for the most part.

    Anyway, looking at Consumer Reports' testing results, I saw the following (this is for my model):

    Fuel economy
    CU's overall mileage, mpg 28
    CU's city/highway, mpg 18/43
    CU's 150-mile trip, mpg 34
    Annual fuel: gal./cost 535/$1175
    Cruising range, mi. 420

    For a manual transmission, here are the stats:

    Fuel economy
    CU's overall mileage, mpg 31
    CU's city/highway, mpg 22/40
    CU's 150-mile trip, mpg 37
    Annual fuel: gal./cost 490/$1080
    Cruising range, mi. 465

    Seeing the 18/43 (as opposed to the EPA's 30/40) makes a lot more sense to me, at least on the low end. My individual tanks of gas have ranged from 22 to 27 MPG, and with my type of driving, that would fall in line. I expected to get around 27 on average based on the 30/40 (knowing that's inflated).

    Just thought this was interesting. Hopefully I'll have need for a long trip one of these days to check the mileage with a full highway run.
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    Just thought this was interesting. Hopefully I'll have need for a long trip one of these days to check the mileage with a full highway run.

    yeah thats probably what you need to do; if its cold your mpg will take a hit, especially when you drive such short distances. Granted the civics new rating is 25/36 so that puts you just below it.
  • barrnonebarrnone Member Posts: 21
    True, but I'm still not happy about the situation. I consider this to be false advertising, since a major selling point of the Civic was gas mileage. I never expect to get the EPA numbers, but I do expect to be somewhat in the ballpark. To see a car listed at 30/40 and then get about 24 is unacceptable. I very well might not have bought a Civic if I had known the mileage would be what it is. Heck, my 2000 Pontiac Grand Am SE averaged around 21, and that's a 6 Cylinder engine with considerably more horsepower, not to mention I used to have a lead foot and with the Civic have been much more conservative.

    The bottom line is I bought a relatively underpowered car as a tradeoff to improve my gas mileage, and the improvement has been marginal at best. It's disappointing.
  • mth2mth2 Member Posts: 25
    Not sure about this but take it for what it's worth: After reading about mpg results on Edmunds over the last year or so, it seems that for the most part (though not exclusively) the car owners with the worst mpg results tend to live in the northern states. Cold weather must be a part of the equation. But something even more than cold weather: boutique gasolines. Many or all of the refineries have to make different mixes of gasolines for many of the northern states, and each area has its own requirements. My guess is that these boutique formulas cut down on mpg in a significant way. Whatever is added or taken out of the "regular" formula to "enhance" air quality must have an effect on mpg.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Might I call your attention to a past message:

    ..."MSG 363 ..."So for example on the new car sticker; for the 2004 Honda Civic, the EPA BOLD numbers are: "29 City/38 Highway". Again if one reads the "finer" print it, goes on to say:..." ACTUAL MILEAGE ... will achieve between 24 AND ...34 mpg in the city... 32 AND 44 mpg on the highway"...

    So it seems to me, if someone is getting 24 mpg they are telling me it is within the RANGE.

    Perhaps you should read (yours) and quote it. "...

    So if you got below the lowest then I would say you might have grounds to claim false advertising.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I would agree with your take on "boutique" fuel. CA I think is notorious (in CA and in the trade obviously for this, usually seamless to folks like you and me) for any number of "boutique" blends. To name a few, CA blend, winter fuel, summer fuel, high altitude fuel, regional fuel. Not surprisingly, the prices are usually the highest in the nation.
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    So if you got below the lowest then I would say you might have grounds to claim false advertising

    ruking is right; and even then its not false adverstising; honda didn't do the test; the epa did. Thats why the numbers are changing.

    If the 2004 honda civic had a rating of 29/38 and the average city was between 24 and 34, then what do you suppose the average will be for your civic, which states 25 in the city? Probably around 21-28. So that would put you spot on, actually it would put you right in the middle, so i guess you are doing pretty good.(i'm going by the new epa figures, the engine wont change for the 08 civic, its just the test.)

    I averaged anywhere from 25-28 in the city with my civic and i live in North Carolina; not nearly as cold as jersey, even when it is cold here. So a 2-3 mpg drop due to the cold seems like no biggie.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I would be the first to say this might not seem to be related to the thread topic at hand, but let me throw it out there anyway. If it floats like a lead balloon, so be it. It most likely DOES greatly affect/have an effect on the MPG and overall running of the Honda Civic.(others also but this thread is about Civics)

    The best operation of an ICE is at durations of 1 hour or MORE at freeway speeds: etc, etc,. The net effect is the best fuel mileage, best combustion, least waste, etc, etc.
  • barrnonebarrnone Member Posts: 21
    I'm not trying to say I have any kind of claim against Honda, not one that I'd be able to take to court and win, anyway. As I said, I'm just disappointed as I expected better. I figured on 27 MPG at worst (on average), and I'm getting 24. And again, I'm comparing to a 6-Cyl Grand Am that made 21 while I drove aggressively. Perhaps for the suburban driving I do, the difference isn't huge. I take my kids to daycare/school in the morning, meaning after I leave for work I have two stops within a couple of miles of my house. Then I drive about 8 miles to work, 5 of it on the highway. The drive home is 9 miles of suburban driving, as the highway at rush hour backs up so I avoid it.

    I figure it all comes down to how you drive, and that's not figured into any MPG estimates, EPA or otherwise. Now I know for my next purchase. If I had a 20 mile highway commute to work each day, I'd probably be seeing much better mileage. But I don't, so I'm likely fine with a 6 cylinder engine that isn't at the top of the MPG chain. This is a learning experience, I guess.

    As far as the type of gas goes, I throw that out since I'm comparing my old car to my Civic. I used the same gas from the same gas stations. The Grand Am was listed at 20/32 and I was around 21 with the same general driving. That's my ground for comparison.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I would agree with you. While one can do the math for your yearly mileage (I assume you already have), I would SWAG you owe nothing on your 6 cylinder vs a payment for the Civic. That monthly payment is HARD to overcome per mile driven even if you get outrageous mpg. I SWAG further using your 6 cylinder is cheaper overall both in per mile driven (yearly) and dollar volume than the new Civic.
  • barrnonebarrnone Member Posts: 21
    You would be correct in that I owed nothing on my 6 cyl pontiac. I was going to wait another year before getting a new car, but I got a nail in the sidewall and was told I needed four new tires. Not wanting to invest in a new set, I pushed up my timetable (even though the tires impacted the trade-in value, which was pretty low to begin with).

    I did figure in savings from the improved gas mileage when making my decision. I assumed around 7 MPG better, instead I'm getting around 3. My last long trip with the Pontiac gave me 33 MPG, whereas my first and only long trip in the Civic (which in fairness was a few weeks after purchase) produced the same number (33).

    One of the reasons I was ready to move on, however, was repair costs. I was having costly problems with the Pontiac fairly regulary, probably paying $2,000 per year in maintenance not inlcuding regular service (oil changes and whatnot). I ended up buying the extended warranty on the Civic when they offered it for $650. This gives me the complete first year coverage for a full seven years. So my maintenance costs will be minimal for that time, which helps.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Again, I am guessing, but you seemed to have sold the Pontiac. If so, we shall go the spilled milk route. So for the next cycle due to seemingly "better" reliability for the Civic, you are good to go. Keeping it for as long as possible and economically also, is the best way to go. Also one set of actions that really goes a long way in this effort is keep the car clean!!!! All the best in your new Civic.
  • kennethrkennethr Member Posts: 13
    I bought a new Honda Civic LX fall 2006. The advertised estimate for city driving was/is 32 m.p.g. I am getting 17 - 20 m.p.g.(I have documented many tanks of gas and different makes of gas).
    The dealership and Honda tell me that I don't have a problem! That it is only my "driving style". They say I have no recourse unless I can prove I have a technical problem. The dealerdship says that the computer does not show a problem, so I am stuck in an impasse.
    Plus I was told that the 32 m.p.g. estimate has nothing to do with Honda and it is a sticker that is forced on Honda by the U.S. Government (and that Honda makes no such claims).
    Any suggestions would be gratefully received. Thanks, KennethR
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Just to read your post, it sounds like you believe the 32 mpg or whatever is indeed a guarantee. It is NOT! While I understand this might be upsetting, you did the correct thing in taking it in to see if there were any technical problems.

    So without any specifics on your situation, I can swag, but you would probably spend more time trying to disprove what I am saying. So unless there are specifics.....
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    It is true that Honda does not control the mileage estimates, they come from the EPA. What sort of driving style would you say you have? It sounds like the dealership may think you might be a little hard on the accelerator.

    There are ways to minimize the amount of gas you burn, doing things like slowing down and coasting to a stop light, making sure you ease down on the gas pedal instead of slamming it when taking off from a stop, don't let it idle any more than possible - stuff like that. If you are not currently trying to do these things, you might find they make a substantial difference.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I would agree, but to me if he is trying to solve a so called " problem " it helps to get a habit profile or a snap shot of a habit and take it from there. I would again SWAG he conceptually knows these things. Whether he DOES them or not, is the operative key? :)
  • barrnonebarrnone Member Posts: 21
    I brought mine to the dealer for service as well. In fact, when I told them what kind of mileage I'm getting, they agreed it was low. But they found nothing and simply told me to see how it is a few tanks after my first oil change (something about the type of oil put in at the factory being thicker to break things in). A couple of tanks after the oil change, there's not much of a difference. I have a guy on my street with the same car, and he gets similar mileage. So it's not a defect, it's the way the car is designed. It must require absolutely optimal conditions to get close to the advertised MPG. With all of my starting and stopping during my daily commute, I had better get used to these numbers.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    To respond to those data points, yes, stop and go and especially: turning the ignition off/on are particularly brutal on the engine and drive train, and mpg. So again to swag, I could swap your car with my commute and turn around and get 38-42 mpg.
  • barrnonebarrnone Member Posts: 21
    I don't doubt it. As I said before, the lesson I've learned is that with the type of driving I do, I don't need to be seeking the best mileage rated car out there. Whether I get one with 20/28 or 30/40 EPA ratings isn't going to make much of a difference for me. If I had more of a commute to work, one which included 10 miles or so of highway driving each way, it would have much more of an impact. Since I turn the ignition three times each morning (at home, son's daycare, daughter's school), I'm going to burn extra fuel and drastically reduce the mileage.

    I have to plan a long drive soon so I can see the highway MPG. :)
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    That's the problem! "all your starting/stopping during your commute." Your welcome, no charge!
  • kennethrkennethr Member Posts: 13
    My driving style/profile is that I am 55 years old, drive safely, don't burn rubber, don't slam on the brakes etc.
    I am not so naive that I thought 32 m.p.g. was a guarantee, but I did think that I would get in the high 20's. My wife has a Toyota Camry which gets 26 -28 throughout the year. I am just stunned at Honda's attitude that 17 -20 m.p.g. in a Civic is "normal" or "acceptable" and that "...the sticker of 32 m.p.g. is not a factor in why people purchase a Toyota Civic". I guess I'm stuck with a really bad choice of car and manufacturer. Do I have any legal options? KennethR
  • barrnonebarrnone Member Posts: 21
    To a point that's my problem. I still look at it this way, though. My old Grand Am (6 cyl) was put through the same exact commute. It was listed at 20/32 and I averaged 21 MPG. The Civic is listed at 30/40 and I average 24 MPG. What that tells me is that the estimates on the Grand Am are realistic and the estimates on the Civic are pure hogwash. :)

    Someone did tell me that with a lot of start/stop, stop and go driving, a 6 cylinder engine can be more efficient which is why I'm not seeing a huge improvement in MPG from the Grand Am to the Civic. On the open road the Civic should do much better, but with all the stops and local driving, it doesn't.
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    I think when you compare what you paid for the Grand Am (assuming you bot new)+ repairs+gas- resale value w/ the civic you will be less unhappy. Hope this helps. :)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    "I am not so naive that I thought 32 m.p.g. was a guarantee, but I did think that I would get in the high 20's"

    Really the first part of your response was THE furthest thing from my mind. ! Indeed, I also think the Civic is a gas guzzler! :) Some folks on this board will wince, as I have gone on record with a 38-42 mpg on a 54 mile daily commute. However for us that is down from a more normal 48-52 mpg on a VW TDI. :)
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    Why not switch cars with your wife for a couple of tankfuls to see what kind of mileage you get?
  • ajbchoajbcho Member Posts: 44
    barrnone, don't spend too much time explaining your FACTS, some just don't want to hear it or are reading between the lines. I understand your point as it was my point several weeks ago and realized I'm on the Internet and could be interacting with a 12 year old in his or her pretend new Civic.

    I gave up, apparently I was complaining too much about the exact issue you are trying to state. Gave details, explained my driving style, comparisons with previous cars, that I drove the same route/routine and how I either met or exceeded the EPA etc, etc on past cars. Some didn't seem to care about stats and facts.

    Like you, I based my purchase on mpg, but I won't go there, I'm sure I'll offend someone.

    If THEIR Civic doesn't suffer what YOU are experiencing with your Civic. Then YOU are in the wrong and apparently just imagining things or you're just too naive to realize all of a sudden your driving style and route has changed and that's the reason for the less than stellar mpg. It's a lost cause . I guess when you spend 18K+ on something, some just get too defensive. Enjoy your Civic, overall it's a great commuter. I've begun looking into replacing mine for something else that fits my needs better now that I know I won't lose too much in mpg.
  • ajbchoajbcho Member Posts: 44
    I have a guy on my street with the same car, and he gets similar mileage. So it's not a defect, it's the way the car is designed. It must require absolutely optimal conditions to get close to the advertised MPG

    Bingo! I was going to state this some time back, but decided not to in "fear" of my punishment. First I will make it clear, I know EPA figures are estimates, there that's out of the way.
    Could it be possible that Honda designed the Civic based on how the EPA gets their results? Far fetch, probably, but think about it. I know there is the SI, but overall the Civic is an econobox car. Most potential Civic buyers are practical and mpg is a deciding factor. If you look at the new EPA figures. The Civic's current EPA vs it's new EPA. It's a 5 mpg difference. Majority of the new figures range 1-3 mpg lower (there are links to this site somewhere on the Civic boards).
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."Like you, I based my purchase on mpg, but I won't go there, I'm sure I'll offend someone. "...

    Then either you didn't read your new car sticker or really didn't believe what it actually said. It seems that YOU do not care about the statistics or facts. So for example, if I gave you my car and I drove yours, any guesses as to what you would get with my car and I with yours?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles