 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / May 20062006 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. jdsnipes@aol.com >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 > 40~42 MPG vs the advertised 49~50 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/ >> I am only getting an average of >> 40~42 MPG vs the advertised 49~50 You got ripped off! 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. >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. >jdsnipes@aol.com >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. 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. >>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. >>jdsnipes@aol.com 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! >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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>fuel economy. >>jdsnipes@aol.com Thanks, Spaz_pop Great Site. I'll have to register my Accord, which is my second Honda Hybrid. I had a Civic CVT, but my wife didn't like the small car ride. Nor, since she was brought up with a 4-speed could she ever get over/use to the "slipping clutch" feel of the CVT. >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 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>>fuel economy. >>>jdsnipes@aol.com We're batting around the idea of an IMA Accord as well; mileage isn't as great as it could be (if they offerd it as a 4-cyl vs. the 6-cyl), but it's also nice having the extra power and cabin space. Did you buy an '05 or '06? I'm curious as to the reduction in EPA mileage estimates on the '06 vs. '05- it wouldn't seem that the extra 80-90 pounds that a spare and sunroof adds would decrease mileage by that much. There are claims that it is just matter of weight class; the extra poundage kicked it into another class, which reduced mileage figures. I did take an '06 for a test drive on the perimeter around Athens, Ga.- got it up to 65, set the cruise control, and let it run for 15 miles. It averaged 38.6 mpg on the gently rolling terrain. Mieage was much worse in the stop/go traffic back to the dealership, though... >Thanks, Spaz_pop Great Site. I'll have to register my Accord, which >is my second Honda Hybrid. I had a Civic CVT, but my wife didn't like [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>>>fuel economy. >>>>jdsnipes@aol.com I have outfitted my '05 with a spare at mucho $$$$. Currently getting the EPA 29 "in town" but that is not a lot of true stop and go. Pretty straight shot to work on a limited access at 55, but the humps are enough to drop it out of 3-cyl mode. I get over 37 mpg on interstates from your neighboring state to the west traveling to the neighbor in the east to see the grandkids. Sunroof would have been nice... I think the calculation method for hybrids was or is changing to assure the same charge in the battery at the finish as at the start. (Not sure if it was a requirement in the past.) I wish I still had the Civic, also, for around town, but the wife would not let go of having a (German) American car and trade hers in. If I could only have one and it was my trip car - I take the Accord. The Hybrids are status not $$$ savings, anyway, for the next 5 years - no matter whose it is. Maybe then the cost penalty will lessen and the technology will improve. TTFN >We're batting around the idea of an IMA Accord as well; mileage isn't >as great as it could be (if they offerd it as a 4-cyl vs. the 6-cyl), [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >>>>>fuel economy. >>>>>jdsnipes@aol.com Well, I guess it's a moot point now; with the increase in MSRP on the '06, coupled with the limited supply (and thus the unwillingness of dealers to move on the price), the IMA Accord is just too pricey for us now. So, we'll keep the '04 IMA civic and enjoy our newest purchase...an '06 Audi A3. So, I guess we have a couple of things in common; although my wife has the hybrid and I have the German car... Later! BH >I have outfitted my '05 with a spare at mucho $$$$. Currently getting >the EPA 29 "in town" but that is not a lot of true stop and go. [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >>>>>>fuel economy. >>>>>>jdsnipes@aol.com >>>>><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>>>fuel economy. >>>>>>jdsnipes@aol.com I have yet to find anyone who actually achieves the fuel economy with their hybrids that the "EPA" numbers suggest. Somehow or another the car companies, Honda included, are gaming the process. The break-in argument is a smoke screen. John > I have yet to find anyone who actually achieves the fuel economy with > their hybrids that the "EPA" numbers suggest. Somehow or another the car [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > John Very few people have achieved the EPA numbers since they were developed three decades ago. That's why the disclaimers that the numbers are for comparison purposes only and that your mileage may vary. That said, our 2002 Prius is usually within 10% of the estimates in decent weather; upper 40s to lower 50s around town and roughly the same on the freeway. Cold weather takes a toll, and today's freeway speeds no longer match the EPA test conditions. Mike My 2003 Civic got an overall 40 to 41 (grand total during ownership) with High 30's in town and 44 to 45 on the interstates. If I stayed at 55 mph then I could get 48 on the highway. LIke Mike, within 10% if you always behaved. >> I have yet to find anyone who actually achieves the fuel economy with >> their hybrids that the "EPA" numbers suggest. Somehow or another the car [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Mike > >>>>><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote: > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > John Not really John. The database at greenhybrid.com, tank by tank, and car by car, show folks getting considerably above the EPA estimates. I personally get 47.5 city and 51 highway, about spot on. Hi / I also just recntly purchased a honda civic hybrid 2006. great car, but I am not yet overly impressed my the mileage i get in town (note though that the twon is mexico city, and the high altitude (around 7000 ft) might have an influende. But perhaps jdsnipes could tell readers a secret or two how to hande the hybrid. Is it worth paying attention to not using the aircondition a lot?, does it make sense to try and keep the battery full? is i better use the breaks or the lower gear when driving downhill? how "soft: should one best accelerate ? I am sure that driving patterns matter, but which exactly are best suited to the hybrid? By the way, I never ever seem to have had the electric motor only move the car forward.., even when rolling at low speeds.. is there a trick to make this happen?? regards gr > > >>>>><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote: > > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > by car, show folks getting considerably above the EPA estimates. I > personally get 47.5 city and 51 highway, about spot on. I added an old post below, also. 1) The current crop of Honda's never move on electric only. The engine must always be running. 2) As I explain below, I do get the rated mileage on the Accord but was between 5 and 10 % under epa on the Civic. 3) As you coast you will see it start charging (called regeneration or regen mode), then as soon as you touch the brake, you will see it increase the regen and with significant braking pressure the regeneration goes to maximum. So, in general, the care and feeding of the battery will take care of itself. Even when living in a mountain state where you MUST use the engine on long downhills and PUMP the brakes, remember BRAKE PADS ARE CHEAPER THAN ENGINES. The brakes are usually the better primary means for passenger autos. If you know you are going to climb a long hill, then yes it is better to have a full battery to start, but there are limited, if any, things you can do that are worth doing. If you need the electric boost to have sufficient total horespower, then maybe going out of the way to charge the battery first has some merit, but very little. Once the battery is gone, hill climbing capability gets pretty poor in the Civics with CVT. Not a problem in the Accords. Other than that here is what I think of the Accord: >I have had an 03 Civic Hybrid and now have an 05' Accord Hybrid. If I >had to have one or the other, in today's market and gas prices, I [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >Honda did just fine, by me. (except for the lack of a spare, which I >have solved - after market.) >Hi / I also just recntly purchased a honda civic hybrid 2006. great >car, but I am not yet overly impressed my the mileage i get in town [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> by car, show folks getting considerably above the EPA estimates. I >> personally get 47.5 city and 51 highway, about spot on. > 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. > jdsnipes@aol.com 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. >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. > jdsnipes@aol.com > 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. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >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? A Smith, may I ask you when did you hit this milestone MPG on your Civic? My 2005 Civic just get about 42-44 mpg only. and I put about 10K already. Thanks >> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >be the number of digital gestures per mile I get. Does the EPA have a >rating for DGs per gallon? >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. They finally getting away from that static bullshit, and going to actually measure the car moving? >>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. >> jdsnipes@aol.com >>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. >> >They finally getting away from that static bullshit, and going to >actually measure the car moving? 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. >>>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. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >cars on 70 degree/50%RH calm wind days, you are going to have a severe >backlog of testing after the first year. Why is why you, strangely enough, test it indoors. >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. 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. >>>>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. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Why is why you, strangely enough, test it indoors. 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 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >shaped like a dart, or one thats shaped like a routemaster >double-decker buss. 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. >>>>>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. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >results than a dyno test. And you would need a very big indoor track >to accommodate my 10 - 75 mph test. 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. >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. Right now its very inaccurate. Almost useless i'd say, espcially as modern cars will often have their software 'tuned' for the EPA tests. >>>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. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >used to be a lot of bragging rights for lowest Cd. Haven't heard much >about that in years. 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. >>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >acceptable, since you're going circularly, so what you lose from the >headwind you gain from the tailwind. 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. >>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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Right now its very inaccurate. Almost useless i'd say, espcially as >modern cars will often have their software 'tuned' for the EPA tests. Probably no way to completely dodge that. The best you can do is require a wide range of operating conditions in the test. >>>>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. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >talking about it a few days ago on #honda on the Efnet network though. >most cars were in the 0.3 range. 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? >>>>>Most cars get 20 percent below epa ratings. Don't expect much >>>>>improvement. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > used to be a lot of bragging rights for lowest Cd. Haven't heard much > about that in years. >Why not test the vehicles in a wind tunnel-like situation so their >co-efficient of drag comes into play? (top posting is generally frowned upon, but i'll let it pass this time) wind tunnels are expensive, just in rental fees. second, they're just no that big. third, all wind tunnels are static, the vehicle is held in place with force bars, which record the forces acting ont he vehicle when the tunnel is active (info courtesy a riend of the wifes, who runs the windtunnel at Cranfield university) There is no way to measure the effect the wind would have on the load of the carthe car is not progressing, and as such having to work against the wind force. if its not moving, the winds not affecting the milage, and its basically the same deal as with any other static test. nice idea though, good thinking.. a half mile wind tunnel might be more the answer. >>>>>>Most cars get 20 percent below epa ratings. Don't expect much >>>>>>improvement. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> used to be a lot of bragging rights for lowest Cd. Haven't heard much >> about that in years. > Why not test the vehicles in a wind tunnel-like situation so their > co-efficient of drag comes into play? It sounds like drag (not just coefficient, but entire magnitude) of drag is already factored in. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml says: "The energy required to move the rollers can be adjusted to account for aerodynamic forces and the vehicle's weight." The coefficient of drag is just that, a coefficient relative to a "bluff body" (flat surface) of the same frontal area. Drag is the actual retardive force. Mike >> Why not test the vehicles in a wind tunnel-like situation so their >> co-efficient of drag comes into play? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Mike Another unnecessary limitation of current tests is that cars are placed in weight categories instead of factoring in their actual weight. Apparently this is why the Accord Hybrid previously had no spare tire in 2005 and when they added one in 2006 the milage estimates dropped noticeably. The extra weight put it into the next category and it was severely punished. I've heard this argument before, but when I went to the EPA site that describes the testing protocol (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/), it made no mention of weight classes (other than being exempted altogether if your vehicle weighs more than 8500 lbs). It does mention different classes based on interior volume, but the testing protocol appears to be the same for all classes. Do you have any reference material/website link that can give me info on the different weight classes? >>> Why not test the vehicles in a wind tunnel-like situation so their >>> co-efficient of drag comes into play? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >estimates dropped noticeably. The extra weight put it into the next >category and it was severely punished. This is from a Road & Track article on the 2005 Accord Hybrid: http://tinyurl.com/lvcyv Less sun and storage. No sunroofs allowed, because when it came down to crunch time, the Accord Hybrid was on the verge of being bumped up another EPA weight class and something had to go. [Goes on to note absence of spare tire also.] EPA documents refer to weight classes in this description of the milage tests. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/2006/February/Day-01/g451.htm Inertia weight class means the class, which is a group of test weights, into which a vehicle is grouped based on its loaded vehicle weight in accordance with the provisions of part 86 of this chapter. Here is the table itself. Note that at around 3500 pounds the classes are in increments of 125 pounds. So, at some point, one more pound counts as 125. http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/40CFR/Docs/wcd00080/wcd080f1.asp >I've heard this argument before, but when I went to the EPA site that >describes the testing protocol (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/), it made [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>estimates dropped noticeably. The extra weight put it into the next >>category and it was severely punished. >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. 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. >jdsnipes@aol.com 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. >>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 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >>jdsnipes@aol.com |
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
|
©2008 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.