Low Mileage on a New Honda Civic?
December 1, 2009 12:37 PM Subscribe
Unexpectedly low MPG for a brand new Honda Civic?
The wife and I bought a 2010 Honda Civic LX last month and we are getting much lower MPG than I expected. We both drive the car (different days), and our commutes are short (about 4 miles of city driving each way).
Our first tank of gas came out to 19.3 MPG. (I topped off the tank after picking up the vehicle to ensure an accurate result.)
This seems way, way too low. Are my expectations out of whack?
The wife and I bought a 2010 Honda Civic LX last month and we are getting much lower MPG than I expected. We both drive the car (different days), and our commutes are short (about 4 miles of city driving each way).
Our first tank of gas came out to 19.3 MPG. (I topped off the tank after picking up the vehicle to ensure an accurate result.)
This seems way, way too low. Are my expectations out of whack?
1. Your care isn't broken in yet. Typically mileage improves a smidge after that.
2. You're not driving enough for the car to fully warm up, mostly likely; even in Los Angeles my four-mile commute's gas mileage is a couple of MPG too low. If you're driving somewhere colder, your gas mileage is going to suck until things are warmed up.
3. How you drive is more important than what you drive. As the Top Gear guys demonstrated, you can get 17mpg out of a Prius and 19mpg out of a high-performance BMW if they're both driven around a track as quickly as a Prius can go.
Finally: your first tank means nothing, because you can get different amounts of fuel in the car depending on the pump, the weather, and good old fashioned chaos. Get a three-tank average before you give it any thought. For example, we just got back from a trip in our minivan -- the first tank gave us 19mpg, but the after the second and third we were averaging 22mpg (much closer to the EPA estimates, if still pretty lousy.)
posted by davejay at 1:05 PM on December 1, 2009
2. You're not driving enough for the car to fully warm up, mostly likely; even in Los Angeles my four-mile commute's gas mileage is a couple of MPG too low. If you're driving somewhere colder, your gas mileage is going to suck until things are warmed up.
3. How you drive is more important than what you drive. As the Top Gear guys demonstrated, you can get 17mpg out of a Prius and 19mpg out of a high-performance BMW if they're both driven around a track as quickly as a Prius can go.
Finally: your first tank means nothing, because you can get different amounts of fuel in the car depending on the pump, the weather, and good old fashioned chaos. Get a three-tank average before you give it any thought. For example, we just got back from a trip in our minivan -- the first tank gave us 19mpg, but the after the second and third we were averaging 22mpg (much closer to the EPA estimates, if still pretty lousy.)
posted by davejay at 1:05 PM on December 1, 2009
Just a data point, my 1997 Honda Accord has never attained anything close to its advertised mileage...
I'd really love to see the benchmarks they use for testing.
posted by Deep Dish at 1:08 PM on December 1, 2009
I'd really love to see the benchmarks they use for testing.
posted by Deep Dish at 1:08 PM on December 1, 2009
I'm addicted to using a ScanGauge to learn about my cars and driving habits. Also, Deep Dish, the EPA's method for determining fuel efficiency ratings changed in 2008 to better reflect real-world driving conditions. Older cars almost never attained their EPA ratings; 2008+ models usually do.
posted by workerant at 1:12 PM on December 1, 2009
posted by workerant at 1:12 PM on December 1, 2009
None of the information that you gave or that we can intuit (except maybe the fact that it's a Civic and it can get great fuel mileage) points towards actually getting good fuel mileage. You've got a brand new car, and they need some time to "wear in" before you get the big MPGs. City driving is rough on fuel economy as you're spending a greater proportion of time accelerating and then wasting momentum you've already "paid for" as you brake. A short commute results in a greater proportion of time in a sub-optimal operating temperature. I'd wager that on most days during your four-mile commute you don't reach that temperature at all. Also, if you're in the Northern Hemisphere, you're coming up on winter and generally lower efficiency. All else being equal, you'll get better mileage in the warmer months.
You didn't say anything about your driving style, but if you're the type of person who doesn't feel like you're making any progress until you've got your four-banger working near capacity to gently press you back into your seat, you shouldn't expect great MPGs. And, like I alluded to above, anytime you're braking after gaining any momentum you didn't gain from descending hills, you're wasting momentum you've already bought and paid for.
(on preview, I see a lot of this has been covered. I'll post it anyway)
posted by The Potate at 1:12 PM on December 1, 2009
You didn't say anything about your driving style, but if you're the type of person who doesn't feel like you're making any progress until you've got your four-banger working near capacity to gently press you back into your seat, you shouldn't expect great MPGs. And, like I alluded to above, anytime you're braking after gaining any momentum you didn't gain from descending hills, you're wasting momentum you've already bought and paid for.
(on preview, I see a lot of this has been covered. I'll post it anyway)
posted by The Potate at 1:12 PM on December 1, 2009
Response by poster: Thanks for the replies. I've been driving the Civic like a little old lady. I also have a 1990 Camry that gets 20.4 MPG under the same conditions, so that's what made me so concerned.
I realize that any potential efficiency gains in the past 20 years have been offset by heavier cars, but man...
What sort of gain can I expect to see once the engine is broken in?
posted by entropicamericana at 1:22 PM on December 1, 2009
I realize that any potential efficiency gains in the past 20 years have been offset by heavier cars, but man...
What sort of gain can I expect to see once the engine is broken in?
posted by entropicamericana at 1:22 PM on December 1, 2009
I would like to second the points that davejay made above. try going on a longer trip, and you should find that you get better mileage. I've taken a couple 300 mile trips (one way) in my 08 civic and got around 38 MPG each time, with no outrageous hypermiling tricks. I get close to what you got if I'm just driving around town without letting the engine warm up.
All cars get worse mileage when their engines are cold. The car's computer is programmed to inject more fuel when the engine is cold to make combustion easier, because there is no heat built up in the metal parts of the engine like there would be on a longer trip.
posted by ArgentCorvid at 1:25 PM on December 1, 2009
All cars get worse mileage when their engines are cold. The car's computer is programmed to inject more fuel when the engine is cold to make combustion easier, because there is no heat built up in the metal parts of the engine like there would be on a longer trip.
posted by ArgentCorvid at 1:25 PM on December 1, 2009
Also, you might want to check out this site. If you follow any of those tips, you'll increase your efficiency.
I know a lot of people read "accelerate slowly," (a big part of the above website) and just think "stuff it." At least you'll know why you're not getting great MPGs, though.
FWIW, I get about 30 MPG on my '97 Taurus by following those rules.
posted by The Potate at 1:27 PM on December 1, 2009
I know a lot of people read "accelerate slowly," (a big part of the above website) and just think "stuff it." At least you'll know why you're not getting great MPGs, though.
FWIW, I get about 30 MPG on my '97 Taurus by following those rules.
posted by The Potate at 1:27 PM on December 1, 2009
as a data point i pretty consistently get 29-31 MPG on my 08 Civic. But I would wait to go past 1000 miles first, to start measuring.
posted by pyro979 at 1:31 PM on December 1, 2009
posted by pyro979 at 1:31 PM on December 1, 2009
I guess I made it sound like I follow all the rules, but I don't. I mostly stick with the mantra of "accelerate only enough to avoid braking as much as you possibly can. If I followed the rules more closely, I'd get a lot better than 30 MPG. As it is, it works out to 30-32 with > 80% short city trips.
posted by The Potate at 1:37 PM on December 1, 2009
posted by The Potate at 1:37 PM on December 1, 2009
I get low 30s in town, high 30s on the highway, with my 2008 4-door Civic LX. For what it's worth, this is a little lower than our old 1996 Civic DX, which gets low thirties in town and forty or more on the highway. (A mechanic once explained to me that the 96 DX has a very efficient 5th speed gearing and that this is not true of other Civics of the same generation.) It is generally true that current Civics are heavier with safety equipment and not as fuel efficient, though they are still pretty darn good for a non-hybrid.
You might be interested in MeFi's sister site, Fuelly.com, which lets you track gas spending and efficiency over time.
posted by aught at 1:38 PM on December 1, 2009
You might be interested in MeFi's sister site, Fuelly.com, which lets you track gas spending and efficiency over time.
posted by aught at 1:38 PM on December 1, 2009
speakking of fuelly, the graph on the Honda Civic page shows 19.3 MPG is really at the low end of the scale, check to make sure the emergency brake isn't on (kidding).
http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/civic/
posted by fatbaq at 1:49 PM on December 1, 2009
http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/civic/
posted by fatbaq at 1:49 PM on December 1, 2009
I have an '06 Civic with about 70k on it, and for a while I hitting 30mpg every tank. It has since dropped quite a bit, say about 26mpg. Partly that's because traffic where I live is far worse during the school season, and (if this thread is correct) the colder weather.
posted by mad bomber what bombs at midnight at 2:42 PM on December 1, 2009
posted by mad bomber what bombs at midnight at 2:42 PM on December 1, 2009
Have you checked your tires? I got a new Subaru a couple of months ago and, while I knew the mileage wasn't going to be spectacular, it was really low (15 or 16MPG). Turns out I ran over a screw around day 3. I took it to the dealer and they fixed it up. MPG is now within normal ranges. It also has taken until just recently for the MPG to kind of 'even out' as others have said, so there is that to consider as well.
posted by waitangi at 3:01 PM on December 1, 2009
posted by waitangi at 3:01 PM on December 1, 2009
I get 19 city, and closer to 24 when the highway driving is mixed in, according to my Subaru's onboard computer. This matches with my own tests, so I'm confident it's right. This is inline with my model's estimated MPG and my own driving habits. I would expect a Civic to do better than this. My old Civic did.
My first guess is you're measuring wrong; the second guess is tire pressure. Beyond that, driving habits matter. So see if you can find a button on the clock with instantanous and average MPG ratings to measure correctly, and the next time you fill up the gas check your tire pressure correctly.
Finally, address your own driving profile. The thing that kills efficiency is not so much acceleration as braking. Every speed decrease caused by braking is wasted gas. I'm guessing your short 4 mile journey has multiple stops? If you can, try to maximize the minimum speed; by reducing speed far ahead of a red light, you can conserve some energy as the light turns green. So try to optimize the route for long stretches of roads with few "stops". This may be hard with a very short commute.
Also if you live in hills all bets are off.
posted by pwnguin at 3:47 PM on December 1, 2009
My first guess is you're measuring wrong; the second guess is tire pressure. Beyond that, driving habits matter. So see if you can find a button on the clock with instantanous and average MPG ratings to measure correctly, and the next time you fill up the gas check your tire pressure correctly.
Finally, address your own driving profile. The thing that kills efficiency is not so much acceleration as braking. Every speed decrease caused by braking is wasted gas. I'm guessing your short 4 mile journey has multiple stops? If you can, try to maximize the minimum speed; by reducing speed far ahead of a red light, you can conserve some energy as the light turns green. So try to optimize the route for long stretches of roads with few "stops". This may be hard with a very short commute.
Also if you live in hills all bets are off.
posted by pwnguin at 3:47 PM on December 1, 2009
As others have said upthread, your mileage figures are going to be off until the engine's rings "seat". Seating the rings is a critical part of breaking in your engine, and it definitely should NOT be done by "driving like a little old lady." Google "engine break in recommendations" for more info.
Personally, I would call your local dealership (or where ever you purchased the car) and talk to one of their mechanics about the proper break in procedure for this motor. You want to seat the rings, and this usually means driving the motor somewhat hard, as you want the cylinder walls' freshly honed crosshatch pattern to file down the rings' peaks and valleys, a process that will result in an excellent seal for each ring. That process won't happen if you baby the motor, as you'll end up with a motor in which the rings never fully seat. Soon enough, the file-like edges exposed by the hone of the crosshatch pattern will be worn down, and once they are, your rings won't be able to seat any further. Your goal, when breaking in the motor, is to make the most of these ridges while they still have strongly defined edges. An efficient motor is efficient, in large part, because its rings are really, really well seated.
posted by mosk at 3:48 PM on December 1, 2009
Personally, I would call your local dealership (or where ever you purchased the car) and talk to one of their mechanics about the proper break in procedure for this motor. You want to seat the rings, and this usually means driving the motor somewhat hard, as you want the cylinder walls' freshly honed crosshatch pattern to file down the rings' peaks and valleys, a process that will result in an excellent seal for each ring. That process won't happen if you baby the motor, as you'll end up with a motor in which the rings never fully seat. Soon enough, the file-like edges exposed by the hone of the crosshatch pattern will be worn down, and once they are, your rings won't be able to seat any further. Your goal, when breaking in the motor, is to make the most of these ridges while they still have strongly defined edges. An efficient motor is efficient, in large part, because its rings are really, really well seated.
posted by mosk at 3:48 PM on December 1, 2009
Oh yea. Don't forget to check the ethanol content of your fuel. I think you can go up to like 10 percent without failing the engine, but the stuff contains less energy.
posted by pwnguin at 3:52 PM on December 1, 2009
posted by pwnguin at 3:52 PM on December 1, 2009
Response by poster: Burhanistan: While I'm sure Fuelly is nice, I use Gas Cubby on my iPhone to track mileage. I'm sure the figure was accurate.
waitangi: My tires might be low, I'll check, but I know they aren't catastrophically low. (Automatic tire monitoring whoozit.)
mosk: I assume you're referring to "MotoMan?" Interesting theory, but contradictory to every other source on the matter. Also moot, since the car had 40 miles on it when I got it.
The weather here has been in the 50s, plus or minus ten degrees since I've had the car. I'm sure my driving habits are not the cause; I've always used most of the hypermiling techniques.
I guess we'll see what the next tank gets.
posted by entropicamericana at 4:20 PM on December 1, 2009
waitangi: My tires might be low, I'll check, but I know they aren't catastrophically low. (Automatic tire monitoring whoozit.)
mosk: I assume you're referring to "MotoMan?" Interesting theory, but contradictory to every other source on the matter. Also moot, since the car had 40 miles on it when I got it.
The weather here has been in the 50s, plus or minus ten degrees since I've had the car. I'm sure my driving habits are not the cause; I've always used most of the hypermiling techniques.
I guess we'll see what the next tank gets.
posted by entropicamericana at 4:20 PM on December 1, 2009
I have gotten anywhere between 22 and 40 mpg in my 2006 Civic LX.
Some things that I think have made a pretty significant difference:
- Tire pressure. Back before I paid attention to this, my gas mileage was much lower.
- Type of driving. The 22 mpg came at a time when all of my driving was going 4 miles to college, driving around parking lots for 15 minutes looking for a space, and coming back. (...after class was over, not after giving up on parking.)
- Weather. It's definitely true that cold weather wrecks gas mileage.
- Break-in is probably also relevant, as my worst gas mileage did come early in the car's life.
But yeah, if it's brand new and you're doing a lot of short distance stop-and-go driving, 19 seems possible to me. I'd say to give it a little time and see if it improves a bit.
This is just kind of a theory, but I think heavier cars tend to do worse with city driving. My Civic can get better highway mileage than my girlfriend's Fit, but I can't even come close for city driving. Thus, since newer cars tend to be heavier, the difference between city mileage and highway mileage may tend to be greater.
posted by miraimatt at 4:26 PM on December 1, 2009
Some things that I think have made a pretty significant difference:
- Tire pressure. Back before I paid attention to this, my gas mileage was much lower.
- Type of driving. The 22 mpg came at a time when all of my driving was going 4 miles to college, driving around parking lots for 15 minutes looking for a space, and coming back. (...after class was over, not after giving up on parking.)
- Weather. It's definitely true that cold weather wrecks gas mileage.
- Break-in is probably also relevant, as my worst gas mileage did come early in the car's life.
But yeah, if it's brand new and you're doing a lot of short distance stop-and-go driving, 19 seems possible to me. I'd say to give it a little time and see if it improves a bit.
This is just kind of a theory, but I think heavier cars tend to do worse with city driving. My Civic can get better highway mileage than my girlfriend's Fit, but I can't even come close for city driving. Thus, since newer cars tend to be heavier, the difference between city mileage and highway mileage may tend to be greater.
posted by miraimatt at 4:26 PM on December 1, 2009
The World Famous has it- the Civic is bigger and thirstier.
Not sure how much I put into the ring seating thing, I think the newer tolerances cars are built to these days obviate that process. Not saying it won't happen, but that you shouldn't expect it.
4 miles as a commute is really short. Regardless of how those miles are actually put on (unless it's door to door highway), you aren't going to get very good MPG numbers.
10% ethanol fuel contains 96.46% the energy that straight gasoline does. 3.5% is for almost all purposes, below the noise level.
posted by gjc at 4:45 PM on December 1, 2009
Not sure how much I put into the ring seating thing, I think the newer tolerances cars are built to these days obviate that process. Not saying it won't happen, but that you shouldn't expect it.
4 miles as a commute is really short. Regardless of how those miles are actually put on (unless it's door to door highway), you aren't going to get very good MPG numbers.
10% ethanol fuel contains 96.46% the energy that straight gasoline does. 3.5% is for almost all purposes, below the noise level.
posted by gjc at 4:45 PM on December 1, 2009
mosk: I assume you're referring to "MotoMan?" Interesting theory, but contradictory to every other source on the matter. Also moot, since the car had 40 miles on it when I got it.
No, I wasn't actually referring to his site (or any one source, actually). I have personal experience building and modifying turbocharged motors, and the engine builder I've used for my stuff advocates a more aggressive break in protocol -- not reckless or abusive, but not overly gentle, either. This is now more-or-less the norm for performance motors, and there's no reason why it wouldn't be true for any other high revving gasoline motor, which your Honda certainly is. Also, I'd be careful about believing that "every other source" advocates a gentle break in procedure -- that may have been true in The Old Days, when gasoline had lead in it, but the steel alloys used in current, modern motors require a different break in procedure. Conventional wisdom has evolved in this area.
Again, my suggestion is to call the dealership and speak with a mechanic, preferably one that's been certified by Honda, and ask him how he would break in this motor if it were his. 40 miles is not too late, but 400 miles may be, and 4000 miles certainly is. (And I'm not saying this is necessarily the cause of your poor mileage, just that the idea of babying a new motor goes against my own experience.)
posted by mosk at 5:01 PM on December 1, 2009
No, I wasn't actually referring to his site (or any one source, actually). I have personal experience building and modifying turbocharged motors, and the engine builder I've used for my stuff advocates a more aggressive break in protocol -- not reckless or abusive, but not overly gentle, either. This is now more-or-less the norm for performance motors, and there's no reason why it wouldn't be true for any other high revving gasoline motor, which your Honda certainly is. Also, I'd be careful about believing that "every other source" advocates a gentle break in procedure -- that may have been true in The Old Days, when gasoline had lead in it, but the steel alloys used in current, modern motors require a different break in procedure. Conventional wisdom has evolved in this area.
Again, my suggestion is to call the dealership and speak with a mechanic, preferably one that's been certified by Honda, and ask him how he would break in this motor if it were his. 40 miles is not too late, but 400 miles may be, and 4000 miles certainly is. (And I'm not saying this is necessarily the cause of your poor mileage, just that the idea of babying a new motor goes against my own experience.)
posted by mosk at 5:01 PM on December 1, 2009
I have a 2008 Civic and drive ALL highway (85 mile 0ne-way commite) and get an average of 37.2 @ 65-70 mpg.
A 4 mile commute is not long enough for ir to warm-up, it's still in 'closed loop' most of the time, google it.
posted by raildr at 6:29 PM on December 1, 2009
A 4 mile commute is not long enough for ir to warm-up, it's still in 'closed loop' most of the time, google it.
posted by raildr at 6:29 PM on December 1, 2009
That does seem low. My 1997 Civic EX (automatic) gets around 25 city, 30 hwy which is much lower than when it was younger, but still decent considering....
posted by ourroute at 7:27 PM on December 1, 2009
posted by ourroute at 7:27 PM on December 1, 2009
I'd really love to see the benchmarks they use for testing.
The Truth About EPA City / Highway MPG Estimates - Car & Driver, August 2009
posted by pmurray63 at 4:39 AM on December 2, 2009
The Truth About EPA City / Highway MPG Estimates - Car & Driver, August 2009
posted by pmurray63 at 4:39 AM on December 2, 2009
(That first line was a quote from Deep Dish, of course. I so wish we could edit after posting.)
posted by pmurray63 at 4:43 AM on December 2, 2009
posted by pmurray63 at 4:43 AM on December 2, 2009
when i bought my current hyundai elantra after trading in my old one, i was annoyed at the drop of mpg, by about 5. turns out that the habit i had developed in my old hyundai of always using the defroster was causing the problem--the newer car had the defroster using the a/c compressor, which was a big power suck. since i kept it off, i generally get 30 mpg.
if you bought this car new, there's no reason why you can't take it back to them and tell them it's not performing and see what their service department finds.
posted by lester's sock puppet at 7:21 AM on December 2, 2009
if you bought this car new, there's no reason why you can't take it back to them and tell them it's not performing and see what their service department finds.
posted by lester's sock puppet at 7:21 AM on December 2, 2009
entropicamericana: (Automatic tire monitoring whoozit.)
In my experience (08 LX Civic) this won't go off until the pressure is fairly low. I believe my tires were at 22 psi the only time mine came on (beginning of last winter), so for the sake of tire wear and mileage I resumed checking them with a gauge every couple of fuel ups instead of relying only on the sensor as I did with older cars.
You must still be on warranty so if I were you I'd take it in and have them take a look.
posted by aught at 12:57 PM on December 2, 2009
In my experience (08 LX Civic) this won't go off until the pressure is fairly low. I believe my tires were at 22 psi the only time mine came on (beginning of last winter), so for the sake of tire wear and mileage I resumed checking them with a gauge every couple of fuel ups instead of relying only on the sensor as I did with older cars.
You must still be on warranty so if I were you I'd take it in and have them take a look.
posted by aught at 12:57 PM on December 2, 2009
aught: "In my experience (08 LX Civic) this won't go off until the pressure is fairly low."
Same with my (non-Honda) car. I believe my manual says it alerts only after you drop below 25 percent of the expected PSI. Plenty low enough to cause a drop in fuel economy. I meant to mention this but figured a second "also" post was a sign to let someone else go on and maybe just ask the dealership what's up.
posted by pwnguin at 1:51 PM on December 2, 2009
Same with my (non-Honda) car. I believe my manual says it alerts only after you drop below 25 percent of the expected PSI. Plenty low enough to cause a drop in fuel economy. I meant to mention this but figured a second "also" post was a sign to let someone else go on and maybe just ask the dealership what's up.
posted by pwnguin at 1:51 PM on December 2, 2009
« Older We are looking for great Minneapolis (&... | DDR3 Memory and Motherboard Compatibility Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
The EPA estimate is 26MPG, and 19.3 (if you're doing mostly "city" driving, as in, anything but doing 55 on a straight highway) doesn't really seem out of that range.
posted by General Malaise at 12:50 PM on December 1, 2009