Honda Car Forum

Well after being an '06 Civic owner for 3 months now, I can honestly say
that the mileage in this thing is so overrated it's a shame. EPA states 30
city 40 highway but in reality, it depends more on whether the air
conditioning is on than anything. Yes I have gottan close to 40 (actually
about 38 when I had no traffic at all and no AC on during the entire
tankful...and that was only one tankful in the 3 months I have owned the
car) but in reality, I rarely get more than 33mpg and lately with all the
heat in SoCal, I am lucky to get 26mpg with the air on.

What gets me is that the Accord I had prior to the Civic seemed to get just
about the same mileage whether the air was on or not. MAN I miss that car. I
am actually beginning to think about dumping the Civic and going back to the
Accord. In addition to the poor mileage, the AM radio sounds awful, the air
itself feels more like a heater when the car is not moving, and all in all
I am not impressed with this vehicle one bit. The Accord is a great
car...the Civic? You can have it!

Jay A wrote:
> Well after being an '06 Civic owner for 3 months now, I can honestly say
> that the mileage in this thing is so overrated it's a shame. EPA states 30
> city 40 highway but in reality... The Accord is a great
> car...the Civic? You can have it!


It is really quite amazing that any of us get anything close to what
the EPA says we should. Have you ever looked up the tests to determine
mileage? It is a joke! No where near anything anybody would encounter
in real world driving.

I drive a 2004 Accord EX-L with the 2.4L and manual transmission. (I
love this car - just hate paying for it.) I have a 6 week average of
33.7mpg. About a quarter of that is with the A/C on. The car loses
quite a bit of power with the A/C, but it still doesn't seem to affect
my mileage very much.

Hang in there. I think once your Civic has a few miles on it and it
loosens a tad, your mileage will increase. The issue with the A/C is a
problem that I wish I knew how to overcome. My wife has a Civic (2005
Si) and when the A/C is on, it is almost undriveable. No power!

Stay positive!

In article <1154620587.861865.278830@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups .com>,
Arlan.Murphy@gmail.com wrote:

> It is really quite amazing that any of us get anything close to what
> the EPA says we should. Have you ever looked up the tests to determine
> mileage? It is a joke! No where near anything anybody would encounter
> in real world driving.

That was never the point of those estimates.

The point was to give you a method of comparing two cars. Period.

They could as easily have simply given them a rating on a scale of 1 to
100. At least then people like you wouldn't be bitching.

I agree with you about the Accord. My wife's 2003 Accord
V6 gets nearly the same mileage with the AC on as it does with it off.
I attribute that to the V6's higher power output so that even with more
weight to carry it can run at lower rpms, unlike the Civic which needs
to rev up more to maintain the same speed, more so with its AC running.
As far as the EPA ratings--to me it's a kind of relative scale good
for comparisons but not to be taken literally. In fact, the only
vehicle we have had in recent years that actually matched its EPA rating
has been our SUV--for that one, its mileage is bad but gets almost
exactly what the EPA shows for it.

Ken

Jay A wrote:

> Well after being an '06 Civic owner for 3 months now, I can honestly say
> that the mileage in this thing is so overrated it's a shame. EPA states 30
> city 40 highway but in reality, it depends more on whether the air
> conditioning is on than anything. Yes I have gottan close to 40 (actually
> about 38 when I had no traffic at all and no AC on during the entire
> tankful...and that was only one tankful in the 3 months I have owned the
> car) but in reality, I rarely get more than 33mpg and lately with all the
> heat in SoCal, I am lucky to get 26mpg with the air on.
>
> What gets me is that the Accord I had prior to the Civic seemed to get just
> about the same mileage whether the air was on or not. MAN I miss that car. I
> am actually beginning to think about dumping the Civic and going back to the
> Accord. In addition to the poor mileage, the AM radio sounds awful, the air
> itself feels more like a heater when the car is not moving, and all in all
> I am not impressed with this vehicle one bit. The Accord is a great
> car...the Civic? You can have it!
>
>

We are getting close to 45 highway with our 1999 Civic HX, manual
transmission, even with the air. 40 in the mountains. No city driving.
Supposedly, the HX sports an "economical, low emissions" engine, even in
comparison with other Hondas. If you really care about mileage, find one of
these on a used car lot, and fix it up. Then you can avoid new car owner's
tax, which has to be terrible in Southern CA.

Earle

"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5gfAg.4658$ee1.2997@trnddc06...
> Well after being an '06 Civic owner for 3 months now, I can honestly say
> that the mileage in this thing is so overrated it's a shame. EPA states 30
> city 40 highway but in reality, it depends more on whether the air
> conditioning is on than anything. Yes I have gottan close to 40 (actually
> about 38 when I had no traffic at all and no AC on during the entire
> tankful...and that was only one tankful in the 3 months I have owned the
> car) but in reality, I rarely get more than 33mpg and lately with all the
> heat in SoCal, I am lucky to get 26mpg with the air on.
>
> What gets me is that the Accord I had prior to the Civic seemed to get
just
> about the same mileage whether the air was on or not. MAN I miss that car.
I
> am actually beginning to think about dumping the Civic and going back to
the
> Accord. In addition to the poor mileage, the AM radio sounds awful, the
air
> itself feels more like a heater when the car is not moving, and all in
all
> I am not impressed with this vehicle one bit. The Accord is a great
> car...the Civic? You can have it!
>
>

Well my Accord got pretty much what the EPA stats say. I traded it in for
the Civic basically to gain a little in the mileage department and because I
wanted a Navi. Well the navigation system is wonderful but I think that
overall, I got better mileage with the Accord considering so much driving is
done with the air on.





"Earle Horton" <Earle-NOSPAM-Horton@msn.com> wrote in message
news:44d238d9$0$3518$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.co m...
> We are getting close to 45 highway with our 1999 Civic HX, manual
> transmission, even with the air. 40 in the mountains. No city driving.
> Supposedly, the HX sports an "economical, low emissions" engine, even in
> comparison with other Hondas. If you really care about mileage, find one
> of
> these on a used car lot, and fix it up. Then you can avoid new car
> owner's
> tax, which has to be terrible in Southern CA.
>
> Earle
>
> "Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:5gfAg.4658$ee1.2997@trnddc06...
>> Well after being an '06 Civic owner for 3 months now, I can honestly say
>> that the mileage in this thing is so overrated it's a shame. EPA states
>> 30
>> city 40 highway but in reality, it depends more on whether the air
>> conditioning is on than anything. Yes I have gottan close to 40 (actually
>> about 38 when I had no traffic at all and no AC on during the entire
>> tankful...and that was only one tankful in the 3 months I have owned the
>> car) but in reality, I rarely get more than 33mpg and lately with all the
>> heat in SoCal, I am lucky to get 26mpg with the air on.
>>
>> What gets me is that the Accord I had prior to the Civic seemed to get
> just
>> about the same mileage whether the air was on or not. MAN I miss that
>> car.
> I
>> am actually beginning to think about dumping the Civic and going back to
> the
>> Accord. In addition to the poor mileage, the AM radio sounds awful, the
> air
>> itself feels more like a heater when the car is not moving, and all in
> all
>> I am not impressed with this vehicle one bit. The Accord is a great
>> car...the Civic? You can have it!
>>
>>
>
>

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

>
> That was never the point of those estimates.
>
> The point was to give you a method of comparing two cars. Period.
>
> They could as easily have simply given them a rating on a scale of 1 to
> 100. At least then people like you wouldn't be bitching.


Thanks for the info! I had no idea that it was only for comparing
apples to apples. That makes sense, but it really doesn't help the
scum of the earth such as myself. Even though I have no desire to
drive from one dealership to the next just to compare a number 5 car to
another number 5 car. I want to know what that the number 5 car will
do for me in the real world where I will be using it.

I really like how you people grow large behind a keyboard.

Thanks again!

Your friend always,
Arlan

p.s. Did you help design the EPA Mileage tests? You give the
impression that you did by the vehemence in which you defend the idiocy.

Here you go Jay, straight from Honda's Tech Line

Tech Line fields many questions on fuel economy, including why some vehicles
don't get the fuel mileage estimates shown on the fuel economy label (part of
the Monroney label that's on every new car and truck). Before you read this Q &
A, here's a sample label with an explanation of its contents.

Question: Why can't I get the City and Highway mpg estimates shown on the label?

Answer: The mileage estimates on the label reflect the average mpg attained by
similar vehicles in a model line under controlled laboratory conditions and are
not the result of an actual road test. And remember, as stated on the fuel
economy label: "Actual mileage will vary with options, driving conditions,
driving habits, and vehicle's condition."

Question: Just how are the EPA mileage estimates made anyway?

Answer: Test vehicles are run by professional drivers on a treadmill-like
device that easures exhaust emissions and fuel usage. During the test, the
vehicle's headlights, A/C, heater, audio unit, and all accessories are turned
off. Upshifts on M/T vehicles are typically made at 15 mph (1st to 2nd gear), 28
mph
(2nd to 3rd gear), 41 mph (3rd to 4th gear), and 52 mph (4th to 5th gear). The
City portion of the test simulates a 7.5 mile stop-and-go trip with an average
speed of 20 mph. The trip takes 23 minutes, has 18 stops, and keeps the engine
idling about 18 percent of the time to simulate rush hour traffic delays.
The Highway portion of the test simulates a 10-mile drive with speeds averaging
48 mph. It's
run from a hot start in a mix of rural and interstate driving conditions. There
are no stops, and there's not much idling time. When both test results are
known, the City mpg is lowered by 10 percent, and the
Highway mpg is lowered by 22 percent; this makes the results closer to real
worldls fuel consumption.

Question: How do I calculate mpg?

Answer: You divide the miles driven by the number of gallons of fuel that you
used.

Question: How can I increase my vehicle's mpg?

Answer: To increase your vehicle's mpg, do this:
.. As often as possible, accelerate slowly and smoothly, keep your engine speed
below 3,000
rpm, and lower your road speed.
.. Keep your tires inflated to the specs listed on the doorjamb sticker.
.. Keep your vehicle in top condition by following the maintainance schedule
listed in your owner's manual and by using the recommended engine oil.

Question: Where can I get more info on fuel economy?

Answer: You can get a free copy of the Model Year 2001 Fuel Economy Guide by
any of these
means:
Mail: National Alternative Fuels Hotline
9300 Lee Highway
Fairfax, VA 22031-1207
Phone: 800-423-1363
Internet: www.fueleconomy.gov






Jay A wrote:

> Well after being an '06 Civic owner for 3 months now, I can honestly say
> that the mileage in this thing is so overrated it's a shame. EPA states 30
> city 40 highway but in reality, it depends more on whether the air
> conditioning is on than anything. Yes I have gottan close to 40 (actually
> about 38 when I had no traffic at all and no AC on during the entire
> tankful...and that was only one tankful in the 3 months I have owned the
> car) but in reality, I rarely get more than 33mpg and lately with all the
> heat in SoCal, I am lucky to get 26mpg with the air on.
>
> What gets me is that the Accord I had prior to the Civic seemed to get just
> about the same mileage whether the air was on or not. MAN I miss that car. I
> am actually beginning to think about dumping the Civic and going back to the
> Accord. In addition to the poor mileage, the AM radio sounds awful, the air
> itself feels more like a heater when the car is not moving, and all in all
> I am not impressed with this vehicle one bit. The Accord is a great
> car...the Civic? You can have it!

--
Tp,

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...

All the ac's in the smaller cars suck these days because the freon
replacment is inadequate. It takes a big car to get good ac. My 94 LHS
with the freon replacement had enuf ac to freeze a small house but our new
Accord can't handle 90 degrees.


"Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5gfAg.4658$ee1.2997@trnddc06...
> Well after being an '06 Civic owner for 3 months now, I can honestly say
> that the mileage in this thing is so overrated it's a shame. EPA states 30
> city 40 highway but in reality, it depends more on whether the air
> conditioning is on than anything. Yes I have gottan close to 40 (actually
> about 38 when I had no traffic at all and no AC on during the entire
> tankful...and that was only one tankful in the 3 months I have owned the
> car) but in reality, I rarely get more than 33mpg and lately with all the
> heat in SoCal, I am lucky to get 26mpg with the air on.
>
> What gets me is that the Accord I had prior to the Civic seemed to get
> just about the same mileage whether the air was on or not. MAN I miss that
> car. I am actually beginning to think about dumping the Civic and going
> back to the Accord. In addition to the poor mileage, the AM radio sounds
> awful, the air itself feels more like a heater when the car is not
> moving, and all in all I am not impressed with this vehicle one bit. The
> Accord is a great car...the Civic? You can have it!
>

"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3%HBg.5122$xp2.3680@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> All the ac's in the smaller cars suck these days because the freon
> replacment is inadequate. It takes a big car to get good ac. My 94 LHS
> with the freon replacement had enuf ac to freeze a small house but our new
> Accord can't handle 90 degrees.
>
Have an 06 Accord coupe I4 and I find the a/c in middle GA with temps around
95-100 will freeze you out. We also have an 03 Civic LX 5 spd and have
routinely achieved 36-44 mpg.

>
> "Jay A" <cajay@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:5gfAg.4658$ee1.2997@trnddc06...
> > Well after being an '06 Civic owner for 3 months now, I can honestly say
> > that the mileage in this thing is so overrated it's a shame. EPA states
30
> > city 40 highway but in reality, it depends more on whether the air
> > conditioning is on than anything. Yes I have gottan close to 40
(actually
> > about 38 when I had no traffic at all and no AC on during the entire
> > tankful...and that was only one tankful in the 3 months I have owned the
> > car) but in reality, I rarely get more than 33mpg and lately with all
the
> > heat in SoCal, I am lucky to get 26mpg with the air on.
> >
> > What gets me is that the Accord I had prior to the Civic seemed to get
> > just about the same mileage whether the air was on or not. MAN I miss
that
> > car. I am actually beginning to think about dumping the Civic and going
> > back to the Accord. In addition to the poor mileage, the AM radio sounds
> > awful, the air itself feels more like a heater when the car is not
> > moving, and all in all I am not impressed with this vehicle one bit. The
> > Accord is a great car...the Civic? You can have it!
> >
>
>