2006 Honda Civic Hybrid

I recently purchased a 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid and am very dissapointed in
the fuel economy. I am only getting an average of 40~42 MPG vs the
advertised 49~50. I was told by the dealer to let it break in and then the
milage will get better. I have over 900 miles on the car now with the same
fuel economy.

 

So give it time to break in and then see if you have something to complain
about {;^)

 

I am only getting an average of

MPG can vary a lot depending on many factors. The EPA says: "the EPA
rating is a useful tool for comparing vehicles when car buying, but it
may not accurately predict the average MPG YOU will get."

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

 

Welcome to the club. I have one that's two years old with 7000 miles
on it. I got the same BS from the dealer about break in. When I had
700 miles they said wait until 5000, when I had 5000 they said " Just
what mileage do you expect"? I told them I would be happy in the
low 40s. After two years, I have never seen more than 34 in town.

 

Wait until about 3-5000 miles.

Also, if you are in a winter climate, that will decrease your mileage too,
particularly on the highway. As well, check your tire pressures and your
driving habits.

 

Most cars get 20 percent below epa ratings. Don't expect much improvement.
That is why the EPA is going to change their tests soon.

 

My '93 Accord gets 15-20% above EPA ratings on the highway.

 

My 98 Civic HX gets between 50 - 54 mpg. However, maybe a better
measure would
be the number of digital gestures per mile I get. Does the EPA have a
rating for DGs per gallon?

 

It all depends on how far, how fast, and most importantly of all, just
plain HOW you're driving.

Smooth fluid driving at or around the optimal speed will result in
best MPG. lots of short drives, or ones which big speed variations
will result in poor MPG.

Driving agressively wll give poor mpg, and thinking and driving ahead
will do better. Its all about you. Geting a hybrid is no magic bullet
*BANG* yuo're getting high mpg figures. I can ease 50 out of my van on
a long highway run, I can get low double figures out of my 88 civic if
i really tried.

 

They finally getting away from that static bullshit, and going to
actually measure the car moving?

 

Also in the civic and accord hybrid, they only go in auto stop if you stop.
If you creep forward continuously you are wasting gas. Move up in steps in
creeping traffic.

 

Driving it 3500 miles per year is not conducive to good milage in my
experience. In fact, with such little use I would question the wisdom
of buying any new car, much less a hybrid. At the rate you are
driving, even if you were getting 40mpg instead of 30 mpg, you would
only be saving about 30 gallons per year.

 

No. That is not a practical solution anyway. If you can only test
cars on 70 degree/50%RH calm wind days, you are going to have a severe
backlog of testing after the first year.

I think the new test drives the car a little more aggressively. What
it should include is a full throttle acceleration from 10 to 75 mph.
The current test assumes that you bought a 200hp engine because you
want to drive like a little old lady.

 

Why is why you, strangely enough, test it indoors.

The current testing makes no difference if you've got a car that is
shaped like a dart, or one thats shaped like a routemaster
double-decker buss.

 

You got ripped off!

 

For the longest time (25,000 miles), we averaged about 43 mpg combined
(70% hwy, 30% city) with our "04 Civic hybrid. As of late (and
mainly due to a change in driving techniques, I might add), we are
averaging around 46 mpg. There is some truth to the "break-in" claim,
but the best way to save fuel is through modifying your driving
habits.

Check out this site for info on actual mileage results from other
owners, as well as driving tips for maximizing fuel economy:

http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/

Good luck!

 

Makes sense. Still not clear that this would produce more realistic
results than a dyno test. And you would need a very big indoor track
to accommodate my 10 - 75 mph test.

The truth is that no matter how you test it, the results will be wrong
for most drivers. Most drivers will be either more or less fuel
efficient than any number you put on the sticker. It clearly could be
more accurate than it is now.

I assume that the frontal area is factored in. Surprised there would
be no consideration of aerodynamic efficiency. I remember when there
used to be a lot of bragging rights for lowest Cd. Haven't heard much
about that in years.

 

not that big, and by indoor, i guess you could replace that will
walled/sheltered. OR, you cuold just use a circular test-track, and as
long as the windspeed is within a range (say 0-10mph) it would be
acceptable, since you're going circularly, so what you lose from the
headwind you gain from the tailwind.

Right now its very inaccurate. Almost useless i'd say, espcially as
modern cars will often have their software 'tuned' for the EPA tests.

Its not just frontal aea though, its shape, flow etc. We did start
talking about it a few days ago on #honda on the Efnet network though.
most cars were in the 0.3 range.

 

Well, then you still have the issue of temperature. Humidity is a
minor factor also. You can probably minimize the variation by
locating in Hawaii.

Probably no way to completely dodge that. The best you can do is
require a wide range of operating conditions in the test.

Wonder what the SUVs average.

 

Why not test the vehicles in a wind tunnel-like situation so their
co-efficient of drag comes into play?