Last post on Oct 29, 2008 at 3:15 PM
You are in the Honda Civic
What is this discussion about?
Honda Fit, Honda Civic, Hatchback, Sedan
#195 of 237 Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [bottgers]
Dec 19, 2007 (9:19 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 (9:31 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 (10:43 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 (11:44 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 (2:26 pm)
...of a power increase is the more powerful version Fit supposed to get?
#200 of 237 Re: How much.... [bottgers]
Dec 20, 2007 (2:33 pm)
#201 of 237 Re: 08 Fit Sport or 08Civic LX [mjoshi]
Dec 21, 2007 (1:21 pm)
Re: highway ride. Not sure what issue specifically you're talking about, so I'll just ramble.
From a rolling turn in second gear, I get to 60-65 by the end of the on ramp. The limit is 75 MPH were I live, but it really only takes another 5 seconds to get near that. And traffic in the right lane is never that fast anyway. I've never felt the car was underpowered to do anything remotely normal on the freeway.
I cruise at about 80 mph for 10 miles. Yes, there is road noise. It's not like my wife's TSX, which itself has lower profile tires. Yes, there is some wind noise. I've never found either to be distracting or overwhelming.
I've never found the handling or "weight" to be unsafe, up to 85 mph that is. Never gone over that.
So 10 miles at 80 mph (3000 rpm on an AT), then the rest your typical rush hour freeway: pockets of 40 mph, then a 1/2 mile of bumper-to-bumper, then some 15 mph, etc.
I get 36 MPG this way. If I do a whole tank at 65-75, I get 38 easily. 330 miles between fill-ups.
Dec 21, 2007 (1:22 pm)
all the light rail construction has created a rattle in the dash. Top center. Need to get that fixed, under warranty I hope.
#203 of 237 Re: 08 Fit Sport or 08Civic LX [fitman548]
Dec 21, 2007 (6:15 pm)
"If I do a whole tank at 65-75, I get 38 easily. 330 miles between fill-ups."
Thanks for your report, but it indicates that you are pumping only 8.7 gallons when you fill (330/38=8.7). Is that correct? Are you really stopping for gas with 2.1 gallons left in the tank? Is it indicating empty or are you just very conservative with extending the range?
#204 of 237 More power for Fit ?
Dec 24, 2007 (5:00 am)
Wonder if the Fit will/would possibly share the 1.8L engine with the Civic. Possibly as an option in the Sport, if nothing else.
Since it is not unusual to see "Real World" mpg numbers for the Fit and Civic so close, it would seem that moving up to the 1.8L would be a win-win for the Fit.
EPA average numbers are 25/36 Civic and 27/33 for the Fit.
Comparing the Civic and Fit automatics show the Civic being 220+/- # heavier than the Fit. Fit has a bit more frontal area, which could be the reason for the Fit dropping off a bit of MPG at highway speeds , compared to the Civic. Or it could be that the 1.5L simply is working hard and would also drop some MPG if in the Civic at highway speeds.
Has anyone seen/heard anything solid on the possibility of more power/mpg for the Fit model change next year?