 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / November 20052006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg with the automatic. What's "wrong" here? > Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA > 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg > with the automatic. > > What's "wrong" here? nothing. the system's been programmed to shift for economy - after all, the ecu /does/ know how much gas is being injected. pretty simple. > > Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA > > 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > nothing. the system's been programmed to shift for economy - after all, > the ecu /does/ know how much gas is being injected. pretty simple. Right! I think you'll have a hard time getting lower mileage/gallon with a stick than an automatic on any of the new cars. Remco > jim beam wrote: > > > Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Right! I think you'll have a hard time getting lower mileage/gallon > with a stick than an automatic on any of the new cars. One more voice: In fact, this trend has been going on for several years. Many automatics have been trumping manual transmission cars for fuel economy, back to the mid/late 1990s or so, IIRC. "Variable Valve Timing and Lift Electronic Control" (VTEC) has been a big factor in this, IIRC. Yes, I noticed this same thing with the mpg on my 05 CRV. >> jim beam wrote: >> > > Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and > Lift Electronic Control" (VTEC) has been a big factor in this, IIRC. >> jim beam wrote: >> > > Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Timing and Lift Electronic Control" (VTEC) has been a big factor in > this, IIRC. Automatics are far better than manuals all around these days. Computerized electronic controls trump human brains and muscles hands down.  SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ Yea but how much shifting is done at highway seep? I saw this and I wonder is the gearing is different. I could not find the gear ratios. I bet that is the difference since they are both 5 speed trannys. >>> jim beam wrote: >>> > > Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Automatics are far better than manuals all around these days. Computerized > electronic controls trump human brains and muscles hands down. > > "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote > >>> jim beam wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Automatics are far better than manuals all around these days. Computerized > > electronic controls trump human brains and muscles hands down. 2005 Civic manual transmission, for one, still beats the automatic version in city driving: Manual VTEC 32/37 Auto VTEC 31/38 The 2005Toyota Echo's manual still trumps the auto version in both city and highway driving: Manual 35/42 Auto 33/39 Source: www.fueleconomy.gov There are of course explanations for this. The point is, it's not yet time to generalize and say all automatic trannies trump all manual trannies, as far as fuel mileage is concerned. They do not. >> > Automatics are far better than manuals all around these days. > Computerized [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > time to generalize and say all automatic trannies trump all manual > trannies, as far as fuel mileage is concerned. They do not. Well, for the most part they do, even if it's not universal (yet). SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA > 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg > with the automatic. > > What's "wrong" here? Nothing at all. Modern automatics are astonishingly efficient. Manuals are subject to user ineptness. I'd say about 99.999% of manual transmission users cannot shift as well as a modern computer-controlled automatic. And that includes me. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA >> 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'd say about 99.999% of manual transmission users cannot shift as well as > a modern computer-controlled automatic. And that includes me. I noticed some automatics were getting better mpg than a manual - sometimes only for city or highway. Can't remember which. They both have their good and bad points. I love the control and "fun factor" of the stick, as long as I'm not in heavy traffic. ie - D.C. or Manhattan. That only happens sometimes for me when I drive there. Still bought a '05 Accord LX 5-speed and love the 5-speed. It'll be a pain to sell later, I know - but don't plan to sell any time soon. Been averaging 27 mpg w/mostly city and some highway. Got over 34mpg round trip between Baltimore County and NYC last week. The trip was mostly 65-80 mph with the a/c on during most of the trip. -Dave >>> Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA >>> 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > They both have their good and bad points. I love the control and "fun > factor" of the stick, as long as I'm not in heavy traffic. I like my manual in any case. Just today I spent a half-hour blipping forwards a few feet at a time on the freeway to get past an accident. Better that than lose control the rest of the time with an automatic. Don't like trannies that change gear all by themselves... > ie - D.C. > or Manhattan. Or the 405 in LA at rush hour(s)... SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > I like my manual in any case. Just today I spent a half-hour blipping > forwards a few feet at a time on the freeway to get past an accident. > Better that than lose control the rest of the time with an automatic. This last sentence is quite the bizarre statement. Are you saying that you can't maintain care and control of a vehicle with an automatic transmission? If you're not saying that, what thought exactly are you trying to convey? {;^) Brian >> I like my manual in any case. Just today I spent a half-hour blipping >> forwards a few feet at a time on the freeway to get past an accident. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Brian I think the sentiment is the same I have with automatic transmissions - they choose the gear they think is best, which isn't always suited to my purpose. It is more often a subjective thing than an objective thing, but the bottom line is that 100% of the time the manual tranny is in the gear I want while an automatic rates more like 90%... with the remaining 10% being annoying. I especially hate automatic shifts on slippery roads. It's like having a demon give your car a little *nudge* whenever he feels like it. My job takes me off-road a lot (I describe the job as "taking computer age skills to the end of bronze age roads in any weather at any time"). Some of the roads are intense 4WD, others are miles-long sand pits. Some people don't mind automatics in their trucks, but I had to borrow a truck with an automatic once and I swore I'd never do that again. It upshifted when it wanted, not when I wanted. To each their own. Mike >>>I like my manual in any case. Just today I spent a half-hour blipping >>>forwards a few feet at a time on the freeway to get past an accident. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Mike what vintage automatic truck was it and did it have electronic shift control? and how can it upshift when you have manual over-ride? >>>>I like my manual in any case. Just today I spent a half-hour blipping >>>>forwards a few feet at a time on the freeway to get past an accident. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > what vintage automatic truck was it and did it have electronic shift > control? and how can it upshift when you have manual over-ride? It was a 1993 Ford F-250, but I doubt the new ones are any better. Our department standard is manuals, both for ruggedness and control, but the guy who originally had the truck insisted on an automatic. He was pretty odd anyway. Automatics can be forced to downshift but (most) can't be forced to upshift. You can allow it to shift, but the actual upshift takes place when it's ready, not when you're ready. I also can't stand the loss of being able to tell when the wheels are spinning by listening to the engine sound - but for those who never encounter mud, snow or ice it probably isn't a consideration. I agree that automatics are nice for driving around town or on the highway in good conditions. Mike >>>>>I like my manual in any case. Just today I spent a half-hour blipping >>>>>forwards a few feet at a time on the freeway to get past an accident. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Mike don't get me wrong, i'm not knocking your preference, but i don't understand the upshift bit. it /can't/ upshift if you're manually over-riding it. if you want it to shift "prematurely" for traction in snow or mug, it shouldn't matter once you're under way. and with the honda, you /do/ have the ability to pull away in "2", where first gear will not engage. > don't get me wrong, i'm not knocking your preference, but i don't > understand the upshift bit. it /can't/ upshift if you're manually > over-riding it. if you want it to shift "prematurely" for traction in > snow or mug, it shouldn't matter once you're under way. and with the > honda, you /do/ have the ability to pull away in "2", where first gear > will not engage. That's our confusion - my complaint is that they don't always upshift when the shifter is moved to allow it. Unless the lower gear has been held longer than the tranny would have held it, the tranny will wait until it thinks the shift should be made. Again, in good driving conditions it is a minor annoyance. In slippery conditions it is intolerable. That truck I borrowed was the one I had when I was sent out in a snowstorm. The freeway was moving as much as 40 mph in sheltered areas and as little as 5 mph in the worst. Since downshifting is the same as braking as far as slippery roads are concerned, I wanted it to favor the highest practical gear. Instead, the only way I could control what it did was to select a lower gear than I wanted. More than once on upslopes I reached places where the conditions were worse and I eased off on the gas to finesse my way through. Instead the demon transmission took that as a sign to upshift, with the little *nudge*. With a manual I would have been in that gear a long time ago. Mike > To each their own. "each" is singular, therefore it's "to each his own". >> To each their own. > > "each" is singular, therefore it's "to each his own". Sorry - I were confused ;-) Say... isn't that his/her own? Or (shades of the 70s) "thon's" own? Mike >>> To each their own. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Say... isn't that his/her own? Or (shades of the 70s) "thon's" own? Yeah, that's why some modern style manuals do now allow the plural in such conditions. J. "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop- 497EEA.12170017092005@nntp3.usenetserver.com: >> To each their own. > > "each" is singular, therefore it's "to each his own". That's the modern perversion of grammar caused by political correctness. It's now /evil/ to say "him". Sexist and exclusionary, don't you know. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > > "each" is singular, therefore it's "to each his own". > > That's the modern perversion of grammar caused by political correctness. > It's now /evil/ to say "him". Sexist and exclusionary, don't you know. yes. Interesting that they didn't demand we switch to "her". >> > "each" is singular, therefore it's "to each his own". >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > yes. Interesting that they didn't demand we switch to "her". I've seen authors use "she/her" where traditionally "he/him" would have been the generic third-party singular term. It looks odd and is against custom, but I guess that's better than using "they/them/their" in the singular. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> I like my manual in any case. Just today I spent a half-hour blipping >> forwards a few feet at a time on the freeway to get past an accident. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > transmission? If you're not saying that, what thought exactly are you > trying to convey? {;^) I mean automatics shift gears all by themselves. I hate that. That's all I meant. I like having complete control over the shifting, even if it means having to wrestle with a clutch in heavy traffic. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > I mean automatics shift gears all by themselves. I hate that. That's all I > meant. More like not having 'total control' than losing control. > I like having complete control over the shifting, even if it means having > to wrestle with a clutch in heavy traffic. I used to enjoy driving manual transmission equipped cars too. The key phrase is 'used to', as I grow older the knees don't work as well as they once did and an automatic transmission is similar to taking Aspirin (it relieves the pain). Brian >> I mean automatics shift gears all by themselves. I hate that. That's >> all I meant. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > they once did and an automatic transmission is similar to taking > Aspirin (it relieves the pain). I'm only 43, so my Aspirin days are a few years ahead. :) SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > I'm only 43, so my Aspirin days are a few years ahead. :) LOL! You're lucky. My knees started giving me problems when I was in my late teens. Thank goodness that all shifting doesn't require the use of a clutch. {;^) Brian >Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA >38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg >with the automatic. > >What's "wrong" here? nothing. in a contrived and non-realistic test one gets better figures than another. Its a lot easier to program a computer to shift at different times, than it is to get a person to shift at the optimum times for these STATIC tests. >Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA >38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg >with the automatic. > >What's "wrong" here? Modern autos can shift smoothly and seriously fast. Especially on the highway, this lets them shift into overdrive long before I'd do it with a stick, since the auto can also shift back out so quickly and smoothly. Better living through chemistry. Even my funky Accord auto is very, very good at such things, it's only when you want a downshift and try to get it through the gas pedal that it sticks and stumbles. J. >>Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA >>38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > when you want a downshift and try to get it through the gas pedal that > it sticks and stumbles. if that's happening, there's something wrong. > J. >> Even my funky Accord auto is very, very good at such things, it's only >> when you want a downshift and try to get it through the gas pedal that >> it sticks and stumbles. > >if that's happening, there's something wrong. Damn straight, but I suspect it's wrong with most of the cars out there, Honda just don't grok automatics. On my Acura, change of fluid cleared up the identical problem ... and it was back in 60 days. I'll probably whine to the dealer, I'm about due for the 30k. Besides the little matter of the tranny, rubber gasket on the sunroof is slipping off, and I think the right front speaker is blown, too. We'll see what gets fixed. J. >>>Even my funky Accord auto is very, very good at such things, it's only >>>when you want a downshift and try to get it through the gas pedal that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Damn straight, but I suspect it's wrong with most of the cars out > there, Honda just don't grok automatics. eh? name a single planetary gear automatic that will routinely give you 300k+ miles! or with the same mechanical efficiency... > On my Acura, change of fluid > cleared up the identical problem ... and it was back in 60 days. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > J. >> Damn straight, but I suspect it's wrong with most of the cars out >> there, Honda just don't grok automatics. > >eh? name a single planetary gear automatic that will routinely give you >300k+ miles! or with the same mechanical efficiency... It doesn't work right pretty much from day one, somehow if it lasts that way for fifteen years I'm not so thrilled. Not to mention the Acura and Honda 6-cyl autos that leave people stranded under 30k. J. > eh? name a single planetary gear automatic that will routinely give you > 300k+ miles! or with the same mechanical efficiency... The AW-71 transmissions Volvo used in their legendary 240 and 740 series in the '80s were truly lifetime transmissions. If any of them have failed I haven't seen it on the alt.autos.volvo group, and ours is going strong at somewhere around 230K miles, even connected to the turbo engine. But even the lockup version AW-71L isn't as efficient as a manual gearbox. Mike > Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA > 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg > with the automatic. > > What's "wrong" here? Nothing is wrong. The new automatics have extra tall over-drives for greater highway fuel economy. This more than makes up for the energy lost in the torque converter. Your typical 5-speed auto today is a 3rd gear at ~1:1 then 4th is over-drive and 5th is an even taller gear. This does not apply to 5s sports car transmissions. I think we can thank the Koreans for these well designed, fuel efficient Japanese transmissions (relative to previously mass produced ones). In fact, I thank the Koreans for all the great value that Japanese manufacturers are giving us. Kudos to the Koreans! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.