Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Honda Civic Honda Civic Real World MPG
2058 messages, Last post on Aug 26, 2009 at 6:19 PM
You are in the Honda Civic Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: kenlw (Aug 25, 2008 8:15 am) |
|
|
wai: the 225-40-18 do not interfere at all, but realize the HFP kit does lower the car about 1", so that may impact clearance. My understanding is that the lowering is required for 18", but I can't be certain of that. I just like the looks.....  Better performance would be nice, but let's be real: it's a Civic, not even an Si. If I had wanted performance i would have chosen something with at least 2 more cylinders, probably the Accord or Altima v6 coupe. But I wanted a good looking car that would last a long time..with good mileage. so it's a civic for me for the next 10 years (i hope). Honestly, it's my 1st Honda and the lack of torque is very irritating after 15 years of driving v6 Camrys. It takes a LOT of getting used to! Other than the lack of torque, I'm very, very happy with it. My previous car was a 97 Camry v6, and at 10.5:1 it did see some benefit from 89 or even 91/93 fuel. 89 seemed to be the best bang-for-the-buck, but realize that car has a lot more HP and a ton more torque. (197/212?). I moved that car from 195 to 215 tires just to help keep them planted in normal traffic. On the Camry, I noticed more improvement with 89 over 87 than I did with 91/3 over 89. I've never tried anything other than 87 in the Civic so I can't say if more octane would make any difference or not. it may be worth a try if you are interested in doing so over a few tankfuls, I would be interested in what you find.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kenlw (Aug 29, 2008 12:30 pm) The key to this isn't the "Honda" part, but the fact that you stepped from a 3.0L or larger V6 into a 1.8L 4-cyl. Having driven both a Corolla with a 4-speed Auto, the Civic actually feels a lot more lively. Welcome to Honda.  I doubt you'd complain about lack of torque in a V6 Accord. 
|
|
| Over the first 8,500 miles, I've averaged about 33 mpg. Up to 40 on the highway, no lower than 30 around town. | |
| If you want the civic to feel lively then get the manual transmission. It is quite a bit quicker and gets better mpg. | |
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Sep 03, 2008 7:17 am) not now, for sure! But the older Honda V6 engines were pretty upside down with much higher HP than torque, and requiring rather high RPM to get the rated HP. Mercifully they've changed that on most of their engines and they're pretty much in lock step with Toyota. I think the s2000 still needs over 8k to get the rated HP, iirc. I still love driving that 97 v6 camry (my son now has it, 230,000 miles!), I put almost all of those miles on it myself over 10 years of Houston commuting. But, alas, the newer Camrys are battleships and imho, just ugly. The Hondas have won me over with far superior styling. If i didn't need the superior mileage (I commute 65 miles daily), I would have that 08 Accord V6 coupe in a heartbeat. Absolutely one of the best lookers on the road today. |
|
|
Replying to: kenlw (Aug 29, 2008 12:30 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: wai (Sep 12, 2008 5:16 am) Heard a lot about super mpg on these cars but have yet to see it on day to day. Would be interested in the results of the premium test. |
|
|
Replying to: mjsten (Sep 12, 2008 7:52 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: bearcrkrd (Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Honda Civic Honda Civic Real World MPG
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 Honda Civic
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
