Sign In Join 



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

What is this discussion about? Honda Civic, Fuel Efficiency (MPG)


Messages Page 186 of 206
1
...
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
...
206
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#1848 of 2058
Re: [ruking1] by ruking1
Oct 26, 2008 (9:04 am)
Reply

Replying to: ruking1 (Oct 26, 2008 6:38 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:
 
"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.
#1849 of 2058
Re: [cjhepburn] by cjhepburn
Oct 27, 2008 (4:32 am)
Reply

Replying to: cjhepburn (Oct 21, 2008 5:22 pm)

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 2058
Re: [cjhepburn] by kipk
Oct 28, 2008 (3:18 am)
Reply

Replying to: cjhepburn (Oct 27, 2008 4:32 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" .
 
Kip
#1851 of 2058
I believe by targettuning
Oct 28, 2008 (4:42 am)
Reply
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 2058
Re: I believe [targettuning] by ruking1
Oct 28, 2008 (6:24 am)
Reply

Replying to: targettuning (Oct 28, 2008 4:42 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?
#1853 of 2058
Re: I believe [targettuning] by cjhepburn
Oct 28, 2008 (9:43 am)
Reply

Replying to: targettuning (Oct 28, 2008 4:42 am)

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?
#1854 of 2058
Re: I believe [cjhepburn] by ruking1
Oct 28, 2008 (10:16 am)
Reply

Replying to: cjhepburn (Oct 28, 2008 9:43 am)

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.
#1855 of 2058
Re: I believe [ruking1] by cjhepburn
Oct 28, 2008 (11:16 am)
Reply

Replying to: ruking1 (Oct 28, 2008 10:16 am)

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.
#1856 of 2058
Re: I believe [cjhepburn] by ruking1
Oct 28, 2008 (11:44 am)
Reply

Replying to: cjhepburn (Oct 28, 2008 11:16 am)

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.
#1857 of 2058
Re: I believe [targettuning] by kipk
Oct 29, 2008 (3:13 am)
Reply

Replying to: targettuning (Oct 28, 2008 4:42 am)

Good Post!

Messages Page 186 of 206
1
...
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
...
206
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement