It’s a common question. 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 head.
But when you consider the changes in today’s cars, compared to those of the late seventies and early eighties, it all begins to make sense. The modern Civic is much more complex, much larger, and much heavier than its counterpart three decades ago.
Today’s Honda Fit is more akin to yesteryear’s Civic, yet it’s so much more.
I’m in the midst of testing a Fit this week and I can’t help but think how much it reminds me of my trusty old 1983 Honda Civic S. (I didn’t leave the “i” off … the S model predated the Si.) But the Civic’s interior was much tighter inside than the Fit. That’s not to say that it couldn’t haul stuff. I used the little hatchback as a moving van more than once, back in the day. But when I flipped the Fit’s Magic Seat around the first time, I was flabbergasted. There’s a remarkable amount of cargo space inside the little critter.
And the highway mileage?
It’s good. Really good. This is one of the cars that responds so well to light-footed driving that you have to question the official numbers …
Similar Posts
- Honda Civic Gas Mileage: 1978-2009
- Honda Fit Sport MPG Review
- 1982: A Banner Year for High MPG Cars
- Super Cheap High MPG Cars: 1978-1981
- Hybrid Gas Mileage Ratings
- Cheap High MPG Cars: 1992
- Cheap High MPG Cars: 1993
.
3 comments ↓
But when you consider the changes in today’s cars, compared to those of the late seventies and early eighties, it all begins to make sense.
Engines have improved remarkably. However, those improvements have largely gone into additional horsepower rather than savings on gas consumption. A 2009 Accord is substantially larger than a 2001 Accord, but it gets the same gas mileage despite having considerably more hp– the 2009 has 190 hp, the 2001 150 hp (on the I4s, not the V6s). The 2009 Civic (non Si) gets the same mileage as a 2001 Civic, despite having 140 hp to the 2001’s 115-127 hp. (Same mileage if you use the same new method; if you use the old MPG method for the old cars but not the new ones they of course look better.)
The facts speak for themselves, and it doesn’t make any sense at all.
1986 Ford Ranger 4×4 2.9L Manual 140hp 18-22 mpg
2008 Ford Ranger 4×4 3.0L Manual 148hp 15-20 mpg
The end result of twenty-two years of “progress” is an insignificant 8 more horsepower for a significant decrease in mpg.
So the only question now is “Who would want gas mileage to be lower?”
When trying to replace my 1986 Ranger, I take my old window sticker to the dealership to comparison shop.
I cannot reward Ford with my business if they can’t make any significant improvements for over 22 years.
To get the same mileage today I would have to drop to a 2wd with 2 less cylinders. Ford’s lack of progress is totally unacceptable economically, and when considering the environment, it is criminal.
I purchased a new 2006 Honda Civic LX and have been very happy with the gas mileage 34 city 39 highway, I just purchased an 2009 Honda Civic EX and am very disappointed in the lower gas mileage 29 city 33 highway. The same car but lower mpg. The 09 is broken in and we took both cars on a 400 mile trip with dramatic mileage differences. Why has Honda decreased the fuel mileage on the same car?? The fuel trims on both cars are within specification, tire pressures 35psi
Leave a Comment