Comments on: Honda Civic Gas Mileage: 1978-2009

By: kevin_405

kevin_405 — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:31:53 +0000

For my 97 Civic Manual there are 3 identical models with different efficient..
Checked on the .gov site the difference is in the type of engine.. VTEC-E , FFS and VTEC in the order of efficiency..

You should add the engine type info also..

By: mpg-o-editor

mpg-o-editor — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:06:40 +0000

@Useless “R” is Regular Unleaded, “P” is Premium Unleaded, and “C” is most likely CNG. Hope that helps.

By: useless

useless — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:24:23 +0000

Since the difference btw C and R type fuel are not defined, this site is useless.

By: mpg-o-editor

mpg-o-editor — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:54:08 +0000

@Ben – Interesting idea. These charts present the original numbers as stated, for historical reference.

Don’t get me started on propoganda …

When time & weather allow, we include A/C on/off data in our current model highway mileage tests. Some cars show very minimal effects.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:45:06 +0000

I would appreciate a final column converting to the new mpg standard so that we have an apples-to-apples comparison between the cars. I’m not certain if it is possible without a large amount of work, but it would be nice for comparisons. I have a feeling that with air conditioning, the 50s on the 80’s will drop to 40s while the more modern cars will lose a single mpg while running the AC. You have to keep your measurement consistent, otherwise you don’t have data, you have propoganda.

By: brad tittle

brad tittle — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:49:50 +0000

Air Conditioning– Ever since I lived in florida, I usually leave mine on most of the time. In cold climates air conditioning is actually quite useful, especially at defrost time.

By: Kevin Sprissler

Kevin Sprissler — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:33:25 +0000

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.

By: L505

L505 — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:36:13 +0000

“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)

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:34:27 +0000

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.

By: Marsha Rupe

Marsha Rupe — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:01:14 +0000

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.