Last post on Oct 29, 2008 at 2:15 PM
You are in the Honda Civic
What is this discussion about?
Honda Fit, Honda Civic, Hatchback, Sedan
#190 of 237 Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [bottgers]
Dec 18, 2007 (9:58 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]
Dec 19, 2007 (5:21 am)
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]
Dec 19, 2007 (5:25 am)
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]
Dec 19, 2007 (7:44 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]
Dec 19, 2007 (8:00 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.
#195 of 237 Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [bottgers]
Dec 19, 2007 (8:19 am)
What you are doing is this. You have a theory like "The Civic should get a better mileage than your '99 Corolla." Then we have a finding like the CR's.
If your theory conflicts with a finding that has a well-documented basis for comparisons, then the burden of proof shifts to you to disprove that finding with your own finding. And citing anecdotal evidence collected off the internet would not do it because there is no basis for comparison for such datum. You do not disprove a finding with a theory. You disprove a finding with a finding. You have not done that thus far.
#196 of 237 Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [bottgers]
Dec 19, 2007 (8:31 am)
I was not comparing apples to oranges, but I think you are. FYI, under the old EPA rating system, the Civic AT was rated at 40 mpg highway, and (I think) the MT was rated at 38 mpg. But you are talking about overall mpg here, so you need to at least look at overall mpg ratings.
And FWIW, I've found that having "VVT" on a car doesn't mean it will get better FE than a car without VVT. There's several other variables that affect FE. I got excellent FE on several cars that did not have VVT, including Corollas, Civics, and Sentras. I don't think it's a good idea to assume one car will get better FE than another car because one has VVT and one does not.
P.S. The difference in weight is nearly 10%, which I think is signficant; e.g. Corolla CE MT 2414, Civic DX MT 2628.
#197 of 237 Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [backy]
Dec 19, 2007 (9:43 am)
Here's another data point to consider. People can post their actual FE on fueleconomy.gov. This data provides a FE comparison using a larger sample size than 1, although there's still the issue of differences in driving styles, routes, conditions etc. But as the sample size grows, those differences even out. Here's what's on fueleconomy.gov for the 2007 Civic and Fit (chosen to get a larger sample size than for 2008 models):
Civic AT - 30.9 mpg, 59 samples
Civic MT - 31.5 mpg, 20 samples
Fit AT - 32.8 mpg, 26 samples
Fit MT - 35.4 mpg, 39 samples
Something interesting though... the Fit Sport AT is averaging only 30.0 mpg with 47 samples. I wonder if this is an example of how driving style affects mpg, i.e. those who choose a "sport" model might drive more aggressively than those who drive the base model? Hmmm....
#198 of 237 Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [backy]
Dec 19, 2007 (10:44 am)
One way to control the data integrity with this kind of database is to eliminate the highest and lowest numbers, and take the median with the rest of the data. I have not done so with either the Fit or Civic results in the fueleconomy.gov, but it might be interesting to see.
Dec 20, 2007 (1:26 pm)
...of a power increase is the more powerful version Fit supposed to get?