Poor gas mileage (2005 Honda Civic LX AT) ~25 MPG

Something a lot of people never think of is the use of brakes. The
more you use your brakes, the lower your gas mileage will be. Brakes
burn off horsepower. The more horsepower that is burned off by the
brakes, the more that has to be made up by the engine. I watch people
every day screaming up to a stop light and slamming on the brakes.
Seems to be the norm now. Then they complain about poor mileage.

 

The speed at which you claimed to drive, 80-90mph I believe it was?

Yes, I do drive at that speed (sometimes even faster) if conditions
permit. I can comfortably and safely handle a car at 90 mph.

Says who?

 

Well, at least she said that as far as speed is concerned I don't have
anything to worry about and can drive fast.

 

Whether you can handle it safely or not is not the issue. My point is that
the faster you drive, the more gas you consume.

Um, the law, for one.

 

The fact remains, the mechanic was wrong. And furthermore, when "breaking
in" a car, you shouldn't be driving that fast anyway.

 

anyone going faster than me is a "fuckin maniac"

anyone going slower than me is a "fuckin retard"

 

The fact remains, the mechanic was wrong.

Can you cite a manual or other Honda reference that support this? I was
told that the break-in was done at the factory. It used to be an issue
(driving fast a new car) in the past but it is not now.

 

My point is that the faster you drive, the more gas you consume.

I dig that.

If the law says that the sky is green it doesn't make it so.

 

Well there you go. So don't go complaining about poor mileage then.

Don't be a dumbass!

 

Well there you go. So don't go complaining about poor mileage then.

I was driving 120 mph I wouldn't. I shouldn't take EPA seriously
anyways.

Are you replying to yourself?

 

Can't speak for a Civic or a 2005, but our 2003 Accord V-6 has the
break-in period instructions on page 204 of the Owner's Manual. It
states that, during the first 600 miles, you need to avoid
full-throttle starts and rapid acceleration, avoid hard braking, and
do not change the oil until the recommended time or mileage. You are
correct in that they no longer tell you to stay below a certain speed
for that time. Neither do they mention changing speed periodically
(to draw oil up past the rings.) Times have changed.

I will agree with others that speed is going to kill your mileage.
It's a basic law of physics. The faster you go the more horsepower
that is required for the engine to produce. Can't produce more
horsepower without more gasoline, all things being equal. Our Accord
gives a consistent 34 mpg at average speeds of 70. It drops to 32 if
I push it up to 80. I would expect under 30 at 90 mph, but I'm not
going to test that theory.

Dick

 

My '93 Accord gets similar mileage figures at similar speeds. In fact, the
best it has done is 36mpg. That's quite impressive for a car that EPA
originally rated as 22 city/28 highway.

 

Interestingly, we had a '99 Accord V-6 before the '03. Driving both
cars exactly the same, the '03 gives about 2 mpg better than the '99
even though the '03 has 40 more horsepower.

Dick

 

why does that surprise you? under normal use, the more modern engine
has more advanced engine management allowing much better injection
control. conversely, if both units were at their respective full
powers, the more powerful one would likely be using the most gas.

 

Why would they bother - can't claim safety nor can they issue a summons
for "driving while the sky is blue".

 

You, too?

 

I wasn't aware that there was that much difference between the two
engines. It's not like we were comparing 1965 with 2005. Both
engines are VTEC. Both have 4 valves per cylinder. Both use PGM-FI
fuel injection. The 2003 gets more horsepower with a different intake
manifold, different exhaust and higher compression ratio. Not really
futuristic technology. We did that in the 50's.

Dick

 

I could be wrong, but I think the current Accord V6 has an electronic
throttle (a/k/a drive-by-wire), something the previous version didn't have.
That may also contribute to a small increase in fuel economy.

 

Same here.

Get out of the left lane if ain't boogieying!!!!

--


Donald Rumsfeld: "If you're asking if there's a direct
link between 9/11 and Iraq, the answer is no."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4865948/

On May 01, 2003, President Bush declared that,
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain --
I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the
interesting thing about being the president.
Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they
say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody
an explanation. "
- George "Dubya" Bush

 

NYC to Springfield Mass in 2 hours and three minutes! LOL!!!

--


Donald Rumsfeld: "If you're asking if there's a direct
link between 9/11 and Iraq, the answer is no."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4865948/

On May 01, 2003, President Bush declared that,
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain --
I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the
interesting thing about being the president.
Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they
say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody
an explanation. "
- George "Dubya" Bush