Honda Civic Gas Mileage: 1978-2009

19 comments ↓

#1 30 MPG Cars on 01.08.08 at 8:09 am

[…] Honda Civic Gas Mileage […]

#2 Wyatt on 06.05.08 at 4:54 pm

Your gas milage charts for specific vehicles is really cool, BUT there is no explaination of the meanings of the abbreviations in the Transmission column such as:
L5, AV, L4, L3, A3, S2.
I assume that A3 is a 3 sp. auto and the M3, M4, M5, M6 are manual 3, 4, 5, and 6 speeds but the S2 manual(?). then some (78 Civics) had no trans listed.
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Puzzled

#3 ac on 06.07.08 at 6:54 pm

What is the difference between (R) and (C) for fuel and what is the difference between (AV) and (L4) for transmission???

#4 jnh on 06.26.08 at 6:21 pm

hey, these two models are EXACTLY the same except for the mileage….is the first listing for a city on some other planet and the second is for here on earth?

1992 Honda Civic HB VX 4 cylinder 1.5 liter R (M5) Manual 48 55

1992 Honda Civic HB VX 4 cylinder 1.5 liter R (M5) Manual 44 51

#5 mpg-o-editor on 06.27.08 at 6:19 am

@Wyatt - yep … some of the transmission abbreviations are cryptic. I’ll do some digging.

@JNH - There’s a string of VXs with dual listings. The best I can reckon at this point is that the higher numbers are for cars equipped with a Shift Indicator Light … a SIL takes the guesswork out of when to shift and can save a good bit of fuel.

#6 Andy on 08.27.08 at 4:08 pm

just filled up my 2008 Civic LX w/5spd Auto for the first time. On the first tank it returned 37.5mpg. I am sure it will do better when I slow it down on the highway…

#7 Joe on 08.31.08 at 5:26 pm

must be something about the M5 manuel, my 2001 auto only reaches 38MPH highway but my dads manuel has seen 42MPG highway

#8 Andy on 09.02.08 at 2:35 pm

on my second tank I never went over 70mph, used no ac and generally drove as economically as possible without holding up traffic…got a whopping 42.5 mpg…no joke…I am loving this car!

#9 Tim on 09.11.08 at 8:16 am

I’m wondering why these are so different than the fueleconomy.gov website. For instance: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/15104.shtml

#10 mpg-o-editor on 09.11.08 at 8:28 am

@Tim - Take a look at the EPA page, just above the MPG specs. “We have revised the 1985-2007 MPG estimates to make them comparable to the new 2008 and later MPG estimates!”

We provide the official ratings as they were originally published rather than the revised estimates, in order to provide historical, rather than revisionist, perspective.

The biggest issue with the revised ratings is that they encourage increased consumption … if a driver is able to hit the lower numbers, they might think they’re doing just fine, when in fact, they can do a whole lot better simply by changing their driving style.

America deserves better then that and that’s why we’re here … to deliver truth, justice, and the American Way (to borrow a phrase from Clark Kent’s alter ego).

#11 ken on 09.25.08 at 12:40 am

2004 Honda 5 speed one reads 38 mpg other 44 same spects what up

#12 Paul on 10.10.08 at 10:16 am

Neat…
I have a 95 CX that is rated 42/46. I generally get about 42 overall driving. Highway with the speeds @70+ it is actaually lower at about 38. I had a 84CRX 1.3 new that averaged 52 over its 170K life with me. Once got 62.5 over a three tank average but that was when the Interstate speed limit was 55, enforced and not runing the airconditioner. Never would see 67mpg highway no matter how soft I drove it. Replaced the CRX with the 95 CX. Thanks very much for the website

#13 Don on 10.27.08 at 5:39 pm

Our first long trip with our 2008 Civic automatic. Went from Mich. to N.C. first 270 miles set the cruise at 63 got 44.8 MPG. Lowest MPG 37 while having the cruise set between 65 - 70 while driving thru the mountains. Fantastic car

#14 Why Hasn’t Gas Mileage Risen? on 02.02.09 at 11:58 pm

[…] Folks look at the charts of any particular long running model and they wonder. Pour over the Honda Civic gas mileage figures for the past three decades, for example, and you can’t help but scratch your […]

#15 Kevin Sprissler on 02.03.09 at 7:14 am

Scratch my head? I disagree - the fuel economy of the cars has improved dramatically over the years.
One forgets the early Honda Civics weight half what they do now; lacked ABS, six airbags, size, general safety requirements that have increased because of the govt, etc. The cars today also have amazing emissions compared to their ancestors. Were the Civics of yesteryear all Bin-II ULEVs or better?? Considering how much larger the vehicle has gotten, how much heavier the car has gotten, and, yes, how much more powerful the car is - it is amazing to me the fuel economy has still stayed relatively high.
I get about 26 on my 2008 Civic 5Spd doing only short hops and got 39 on mostly highway driving.

#16 Marsha Rupe on 02.12.09 at 6:01 pm

Mileage has dropped because speed limits have increased. My 1999 Civic got only 32-34 mpg at 75 mph (New Mexico highway max). I slowed to 65 mph on the return trip and increased to 42 mpg. I went 55 mph (the old National speed limit) on another trip and got 48 mpg.

#17 Paul on 02.21.09 at 3:34 pm

We have a 2006 Civic LX automatic.

In the city mpg we get about 24 mpg, BUT on the highway we get 42 to 49 mpg.

When the car was new we got 42 mpg going 72 mph on a 4 hour trip.

Last year on a two hour trip, with highway speeds around 55 mph due to construction, we got 49 mpg.

#18 L505 on 05.07.09 at 2:36 pm

“I disagree - the fuel economy of the cars has improved dramatically over the years.”

No it has not. Just because the weight of a car goes up and the fuel economy stays the same, does not meant that fuel economy has dramatically improved. What it means is that weight has dramatically improved. Re-read what you said and see how silly it sounds.

Adding useless junk like power windows, which are rarely ever required (maybe for the back doors ONLY…but NO they do it on ALL the windows for you), and other useless junk like Air conditioning in Canada (Canada is already air conditioned naturally - use a sun roof!), along with more useless junk such as air bags that go off by mistake (do air bags help people on motor cycles by the way? how about doors on motor cycles? As far as I am concerned a civic is a big motor cycle and air bags are not mandatory - especially since other LIGHT WEIGHT safety features could be added to the car such as a bendable steering wheel like Volvo had)

#19 Kevin Sprissler on 06.16.09 at 10:33 pm

L505, I re-read what I said and it makes sense.
Fuel efficiency takes in part because people care about EFFICIENCY. Maybe I should have said that cars have become more far more EFFICIENT, not fuel efficient. And, the gross weight of items like power locks, airbags, air compressors (on or off) defrosters, etc. have minimal draw on efficiency when they are not used and mild decreases even when they are - at worst.

The fact is that people have had complaints about cars - and being in a market, car manufacturers listen. People don’t want cars without power mirrors, locks, and the like - and this is reflected with minimal sales with cars that lack that feature. You might not need air conditioning in Canada, but I sure do here in the states. Yes, I am willing to pay for the gas it uses.

Through the years of automobiles, the marketplace has had cars that are hideously unsafe, with rust and environmental issues. The fact of the matter is the modern internal combustion engine is at the epitome of engineering excellence for performance and efficiency, and I think this is a fact that should be congratulated.

I’m all about efficiency and conservation but let’s not forget one thing - the engineering of modern automobiles is extremely impressive and deserves praise, not scorn.

PS My 1989 Honda Accord, with a 110 HP engine got a whopping 29 miles to the gallon at best, weighing in at about 2600 pounds. My 2008 Civic weighs the same, has 140 HP, all the amenities and creature comforts, and gets upwards of 45 MPG on the highway. That’s a significant improvement in efficiency.

Leave a Comment