- #185 of 237
-
Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [bottgers]
by backy
-
Dec 18, 2007 (12:04 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bottgers (Dec 18, 2007 11:49 am)
Here's another data point for you then: when CR tested both cars on the same course, which mimics real-world driving in the city and highway, the Fit AT averaged 32 mpg (34 for MT) and the Civic EX averaged 28 mpg (hybrid did 37). Since we'll be hard pressed to find someone who has measured FE on the same real-world course with both cars, I think these numbers (which follow the EPA ratings in that the Fit is a little better than the Civic) are useful.
|
- #186 of 237
-
Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [backy]
by bottgers
-
Dec 18, 2007 (1:27 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: backy (Dec 18, 2007 12:04 pm)
28 sounds way off (low) for the Civic.
|
- #187 of 237
-
Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [bottgers]
by backy
-
Dec 18, 2007 (1:33 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bottgers (Dec 18, 2007 1:27 pm)
Not when you consider it's a real-world test that includes some tough city driving (CR is located near NYC). I'm sure others will get better FE on the Civic--just as others will get better FE with the Fit. The key thing about these numbers is that they are from the same course, and the fuel consumption is measured precisely, using the same technique for both cars, so there is some consistency for comparison. Otherwise it gets down to an endless discussion of e.g. "My sister got XX mpg in the Civic" and "My neighbor got XX mpg in the Fit", with no basis for comparison.
|
- #188 of 237
-
Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [bottgers]
by jacksan1
-
Dec 18, 2007 (1:51 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bottgers (Dec 18, 2007 1:27 pm)
Controlled environment comparisons = apples to apples
Internet anecdote comparisons = apples to oranges
It is up to you to decide, of course, which one you want to believe.
|
- #189 of 237
-
Re: Comparison [dromedarius]
by kipk
-
Dec 18, 2007 (4:33 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: dromedarius (Dec 17, 2007 2:36 pm)
dromedarius,
My wife drives her CR-V daily and is seriously in love with it. I do a lot of running around locally. That task falls to the Pilot.
For my daily uses, the Pilot is somewhat big and not as much fun to drive as the CR-V.. My wife is not interested in trading with me. However for trips, Pilot is definitely the car of choice for us. Sometimes there is a boat in tow. Don't intend to get rid of it any time soon. Would just like to keep the door dings, shopping cart scratches, and miles off of it. Use it for the ROAD, towing and so forth car.
Something small and "Zippy" that gets good mileage seems like a good idea for my local driving.
And I agree, the purchase price, insurance and so forth make a small 3rd car seem foolish. Here is the kicker. There is not much price difference in keeping the Pilot and Buying a small runabout or Trading the Pilot for something that would do it's job.... and still be too big. 
Thanks,
Kip
|
- #190 of 237
-
Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [bottgers]
by thegraduate
-
Dec 18, 2007 (9:58 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bottgers (Dec 18, 2007 1:27 pm)
We get it. Bad press about the Civic must be untrue, but isn't for the Fit, right?
|
- #191 of 237
-
Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [thegraduate]
by bottgers
-
Dec 19, 2007 (5:21 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Dec 18, 2007 9:58 pm)
I haven't seen any bad press for either vehicle. What are you talking about?
|
- #192 of 237
-
Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [backy]
by bottgers
-
Dec 19, 2007 (5:25 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: backy (Dec 18, 2007 1:33 pm)
The reason I said 28 MPG sounds way low for the Civic is because I'm currently driving a '99 Corolla and no matter how hard I drive it, it never has gotten less than about 32 or 33 MPG. The new Civic is even better on gas than my Corolla so I would think no matter how it's driven, it shouldn't get less than my Corolla gets.
|
- #193 of 237
-
Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [bottgers]
by backy
-
Dec 19, 2007 (7:44 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: bottgers (Dec 19, 2007 5:25 am)
I don't understand your comment. I thought you discounted the EPA ratings earlier, so how do you know that the Civic is better on gas than your '99 Corolla? Also the '99 Corolla is a much different car (e.g. lighter, lower-powered engine) than the current Civic, so I don't know how you can make a FE comparison between the two without actually driving them both on the same route--which btw is what CR did with the Civic and Fit.
I find it interesting you would seemingly value a comparison such as this (your '99 Corolla to the current Civic, not driven under similar conditions) to a study such as done by CR which compared two current models on the exact same route that was a mix of city and highway driving designed to mimic real-world conditions.
|
- #194 of 237
-
Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [backy]
by bottgers
-
Dec 19, 2007 (8:00 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: backy (Dec 19, 2007 7:44 am)
The EPA ratings listed earlier are numbers from the new rating system. Based on the rating system my Corolla was rated under, my Corolla had a highway rating of 39 MPG and the newest gen Civic had a rating of 42 MPG (I don't remember the city ratings). Why would I compare the ratings for my Corolla using the old rating system to the new Civic using the new rating system? Talk about comparing apples to oranges. Also, while the Civic is slightly heavier and more powerful than my Corolla, it also has a much more technically advanced engine than my Corolla has. My Corolla doesn't even have VVT. The 1.8 liter Civic engine is going to be far more efficient than the 1.8 in my Corolla, even in a heavier car.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hatchbacks 
