mpg 1997 civic

Discussion in 'Civic' started by runsrealfast, Jun 26, 2006.

  1. runsrealfast

    runsrealfast Guest

    I was looking at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and it rates my vehicle at
    37 (city) and 40 (hwy). With the way I drive I have never been real
    close to that. Never, not even when I first bought the vehicle. I can
    get a combined 35-37 pretty easily with my drving style. What is the
    real mpg for my vehicle and how do they come up with the high numbers
    posted on that web site.
    I check my 2003 3L v6 camery on that site and they are low on the city
    and just right on the hwy. what gives, anyone with a better place to
    look?

    Thanks

    john
    http://johntaylor.somee.com
     
    runsrealfast, Jun 26, 2006
    #1
  2. runsrealfast

    ecarecar Guest

    Your right foot.
     
    ecarecar, Jun 27, 2006
    #2
  3. runsrealfast

    rick++ Guest

    I had the opposite experience.
    Both my 1990 and 2004 got a couple mpg better
    than the EPA rating. (Except in winter with
    that weak ethonal.)
     
    rick++, Jun 27, 2006
    #3
  4. runsrealfast

    runsrealfast Guest

    Yeah coming from Cali to Idaho its hard for me not to want to punch it
    down to the floor board, people here think I'm nuts but I fit in great
    in Sacramento. I'm actually pretty good in the city its the highway
    where i'm bad.

    john
     
    runsrealfast, Jun 27, 2006
    #4
  5. runsrealfast

    bcattwood Guest

    Which trim level do you have? The numbers you are saying sound a
    little high for the EPA estimate unless you have the HX. For my 97 EX
    (4 cyl, 1.6, Manual (5 sp) , Regular Gasoline, VTEC (FFS) on their
    list) the numbers listed (30/36) match up pretty well with the ~35mpg I
    get with mostly highway driving.
     
    bcattwood, Jun 27, 2006
    #5
  6. It all depends! The only 'real' MPG is the one you are getting. :)

    As I understand it, all those EPA estimates are done in a lab, and are
    based on exhaust carbon mass and other data. Apparently their modelling
    is not always so accurate.... EPA says 22/27 for me, I'm getting
    32+/35+. I must drive like my dead-and-buried granny; all my vehicles
    have exceeded EPA by a fair margin, even a guzzling Cherokee.

    Freeway mileage is greatly dependent on speed. FWIW, my Accord ('92,
    2.2L, 5-spd) gets 36~38 when tootling along two lane highways at 50~55,
    but only 30~31 on the superslab at around 75. (These numbers don't
    reflect many refils, so are ballpark only.) Your Civic, being smaller,
    will probably be less sensitive to aero drag (compared with other
    losses) and may have a faster 'sweet spot.' Still, most any vehicle
    will do better when driven at somewhat reduced freeway speeds.

    City driving is about anticipating red lights/stop signs and
    gliding/coasting as much as is practical. Anytime you use the brake,
    you are wasting gas, and dissipated energy goes up with the square of
    the speed. If you forsee a stop ahead, gently ease off early, as much
    as following traffic will tolerate. Braking to a stop from 40 wastes
    nearly twice the energy as from 30.

    -Greg
     
    Greg Campbell, Jun 27, 2006
    #6
  7. Although EPA is alleged to overestimate mileage for many cars, for some
    reason they sometimes underestimate it for Hondas (and Toyotas). EPA rated
    my '93 Accord automatic at 28mpg on the highway, but I usually get 32-34mpg
    under ideal conditions. In fact, I took a 450-mile road trip a couple
    weekends ago and the car averaged 33mpg. I'm not an aggressive driver but
    I'm not a slowpoke either; I usually drive 5-10 mph above the speed limit.
     
    High Tech Misfit, Jun 27, 2006
    #7
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.