Last post on Sep 30, 2013 at 1:53 PM
You are in the Honda Civic
What is this discussion about?
Honda Civic, Fuel Efficiency (MPG)
#1843 of 2125 1995 Honda Civic EX MPG
Oct 24, 2008 (2:14 pm)
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.
Oct 24, 2008 (5:10 pm)
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.
#1845 of 2125 Right in the middle
Oct 25, 2008 (7:26 am)
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)
#1846 of 2125 Re: [cjhepburn]
Oct 26, 2008 (5:00 am)
5-Speed Manual Transmission Gear Ratios
Final Drive: 4.290
Compact 5-Speed Automatic Transmission Gear Ratios
Final Drive: 4.440
#1847 of 2125 Re: [hammer00]
Oct 26, 2008 (6:38 am)
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)
#1848 of 2125 Re: [ruking1]
Oct 26, 2008 (9:04 am)
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:
5-Speed Manual Transmission Gear Ratios
Final Drive: 4.111
4-Speed Automatic Transmission Gear Ratios
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.
Oct 27, 2008 (4:32 am)
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.
#1850 of 2125 Re: [cjhepburn]
Oct 28, 2008 (3:18 am)
>"I just finished my relaxed and more efficient driving style test"
Good job !
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" .
Oct 28, 2008 (4:42 am)
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.
#1852 of 2125 Re: I believe [targettuning]
Oct 28, 2008 (6:24 am)
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?