Anybody have some input on some real mileage figures for the 06 civic? be
sure to mention transmission type and city/hwy breakdown.

t


--
Message posted via CarKB.com
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx...-cars/200510/1

 

absolutely no one has an opinion on this?? come on now.....

T L wrote:
>Anybody have some input on some real mileage figures for the 06 civic? be
>sure to mention transmission type and city/hwy breakdown.
>
>t


--
Message posted via http://www.carkb.com

 

absolutely no one has an opinion on this?? come on now.....

T L wrote:
>Anybody have some input on some real mileage figures for the 06 civic? be
>sure to mention transmission type and city/hwy breakdown.
>
>t


--
Message posted via http://www.carkb.com

 

T L via CarKB.com wrote:

> absolutely no one has an opinion on this?? come on now.....
>
> T L wrote:
>>Anybody have some input on some real mileage figures for the 06 civic? be
>>sure to mention transmission type and city/hwy breakdown.
>>
>>t

None have been broken in yet.

 

T L via CarKB.com wrote:

> absolutely no one has an opinion on this?? come on now.....
>
> T L wrote:
>>Anybody have some input on some real mileage figures for the 06 civic? be
>>sure to mention transmission type and city/hwy breakdown.
>>
>>t

None have been broken in yet.

 

point taken. i guess i am gettin a little ahead of myself.... :S

High Tech Misfit wrote:
>> absolutely no one has an opinion on this?? come on now.....
>>
>>>Anybody have some input on some real mileage figures for the 06 civic? be
>>>sure to mention transmission type and city/hwy breakdown.
>>>
>>>t
>
>None have been broken in yet.


--
Message posted via CarKB.com
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx...-cars/200510/1

 

point taken. i guess i am gettin a little ahead of myself.... :S

High Tech Misfit wrote:
>> absolutely no one has an opinion on this?? come on now.....
>>
>>>Anybody have some input on some real mileage figures for the 06 civic? be
>>>sure to mention transmission type and city/hwy breakdown.
>>>
>>>t
>
>None have been broken in yet.


--
Message posted via CarKB.com
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx...-cars/200510/1

 

First tank of gas got 19.8 mpg local driving. 2nd tank got about 25 mpg
local driving, and mileage is still improving. looks like im closer to 30
now locally. i havent driven many highway miles yet. i picked up the car
with 9 miles on it and have about 400 now. ex sedan.



"T L via CarKB.com" <u10197@uwe> wrote in news:5624ed56c0bfe@uwe:

> Anybody have some input on some real mileage figures for the 06 civic?
> be sure to mention transmission type and city/hwy breakdown.
>
> t
>
>

 

First tank of gas got 19.8 mpg local driving. 2nd tank got about 25 mpg
local driving, and mileage is still improving. looks like im closer to 30
now locally. i havent driven many highway miles yet. i picked up the car
with 9 miles on it and have about 400 now. ex sedan.



"T L via CarKB.com" <u10197@uwe> wrote in news:5624ed56c0bfe@uwe:

> Anybody have some input on some real mileage figures for the 06 civic?
> be sure to mention transmission type and city/hwy breakdown.
>
> t
>
>

 

"T L via CarKB.com" <u10197@uwe> wrote in message news:5624ed56c0bfe@uwe...
> Anybody have some input on some real mileage figures for the 06 civic? be
> sure to mention transmission type and city/hwy breakdown.
>
> t
>
The claim is for 40 mpg for the automatic and less for the manual. Given
that it is a a 140 hp I4 1.8, I question that. I use an 03 Civic LX 5 spd
as a commuter with about 60% of the driving on I75 getting around 38-39 per
gallon which is close to the EPA estimate. The 03 LX has only 115 hp and is
a 1.7 ltr. My 01 Prelude. on the other hand, gets around 26-27 for the same
type of driving -- I ration myself to about 3 VTEC bursts a trip that runs
around 50 miles total.

>
> --
> Message posted via CarKB.com
> http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx...-cars/200510/1

 

"T L via CarKB.com" <u10197@uwe> wrote in message news:5624ed56c0bfe@uwe...
> Anybody have some input on some real mileage figures for the 06 civic? be
> sure to mention transmission type and city/hwy breakdown.
>
> t
>
The claim is for 40 mpg for the automatic and less for the manual. Given
that it is a a 140 hp I4 1.8, I question that. I use an 03 Civic LX 5 spd
as a commuter with about 60% of the driving on I75 getting around 38-39 per
gallon which is close to the EPA estimate. The 03 LX has only 115 hp and is
a 1.7 ltr. My 01 Prelude. on the other hand, gets around 26-27 for the same
type of driving -- I ration myself to about 3 VTEC bursts a trip that runs
around 50 miles total.

>
> --
> Message posted via CarKB.com
> http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx...-cars/200510/1

 

TWW wrote:

> The claim is for 40 mpg for the automatic and less for the manual. Given
> that it is a a 140 hp I4 1.8, I question that. I use an 03 Civic LX 5 spd
> as a commuter with about 60% of the driving on I75 getting around 38-39 per
> gallon which is close to the EPA estimate. The 03 LX has only 115 hp and is
> a 1.7 ltr.

Are you suggesting that more power and size make an engine less fuel
efficient. If so, I don't buy that. Just because the engine is 100cc
larger and 25hp more powerful than the '05 doesn't automatically make the
'06 less fuel efficient. The 1.8 litre is an all new engine.

My folks have a Toyota Corolla with a 130hp 1.8 litre engine. On a recent
trip, it got 40mpg. And that is with a 4-speed automatic. Given that the
'06 Civic can be had with a 5-speed automatic, that should make for slightly
improved mileage on the highway over the '05. Therefore, I believe that the
'06 Civic should be able to get AT LEAST 40mpg on the highway.


> My 01 Prelude. on the other hand, gets around 26-27 for the same
> type of driving -- I ration myself to about 3 VTEC bursts a trip that runs
> around 50 miles total.

A Prelude probably has more weight than a Civic. That extra weight
contributes to increased fuel consumption.

 

TWW wrote:

> The claim is for 40 mpg for the automatic and less for the manual. Given
> that it is a a 140 hp I4 1.8, I question that. I use an 03 Civic LX 5 spd
> as a commuter with about 60% of the driving on I75 getting around 38-39 per
> gallon which is close to the EPA estimate. The 03 LX has only 115 hp and is
> a 1.7 ltr.

Are you suggesting that more power and size make an engine less fuel
efficient. If so, I don't buy that. Just because the engine is 100cc
larger and 25hp more powerful than the '05 doesn't automatically make the
'06 less fuel efficient. The 1.8 litre is an all new engine.

My folks have a Toyota Corolla with a 130hp 1.8 litre engine. On a recent
trip, it got 40mpg. And that is with a 4-speed automatic. Given that the
'06 Civic can be had with a 5-speed automatic, that should make for slightly
improved mileage on the highway over the '05. Therefore, I believe that the
'06 Civic should be able to get AT LEAST 40mpg on the highway.


> My 01 Prelude. on the other hand, gets around 26-27 for the same
> type of driving -- I ration myself to about 3 VTEC bursts a trip that runs
> around 50 miles total.

A Prelude probably has more weight than a Civic. That extra weight
contributes to increased fuel consumption.

 

In article <Hgy6f.18894$OM4.3121@dukeread06>, "TWW" <twaugh5@***.net>
wrote:

> The claim is for 40 mpg for the automatic and less for the manual. Given
> that it is a a 140 hp I4 1.8, I question that. I use an 03 Civic LX 5 spd
> as a commuter with about 60% of the driving on I75 getting around 38-39 per
> gallon which is close to the EPA estimate. The 03 LX has only 115 hp and is
> a 1.7 ltr.

So you're saying that your 03 LX will always get better mileage than the
06 models (all using the same 1.8l engine)?

Let me think about this. First, the 06 engines are more advanced than
yours--which means better gas mileage, regardless that they are 1.8l and
140hp.

Secondly, I think you're saying that since the auto is claimed at 40mpg,
it cannot--by virtue of being an automatic transmission--get better
mileage than the manual transmission. While that may have been true
before, Honda is now saying that it's no longer true. And I believe
them. They have every incentive to make the automatic trans version of
the Civic as fuel efficient as possible, because it is their bread and
butter of fuel efficient cars.

And they've succeeded. Your 03 is, technologically speaking, now a
dinosaur. It can't do with 1.7 liters, 115hp, and a manual transmission
what a new Civic can do with 1.8 leters, 140hp, and an automatic
transmission.

 

In article <Hgy6f.18894$OM4.3121@dukeread06>, "TWW" <twaugh5@***.net>
wrote:

> The claim is for 40 mpg for the automatic and less for the manual. Given
> that it is a a 140 hp I4 1.8, I question that. I use an 03 Civic LX 5 spd
> as a commuter with about 60% of the driving on I75 getting around 38-39 per
> gallon which is close to the EPA estimate. The 03 LX has only 115 hp and is
> a 1.7 ltr.

So you're saying that your 03 LX will always get better mileage than the
06 models (all using the same 1.8l engine)?

Let me think about this. First, the 06 engines are more advanced than
yours--which means better gas mileage, regardless that they are 1.8l and
140hp.

Secondly, I think you're saying that since the auto is claimed at 40mpg,
it cannot--by virtue of being an automatic transmission--get better
mileage than the manual transmission. While that may have been true
before, Honda is now saying that it's no longer true. And I believe
them. They have every incentive to make the automatic trans version of
the Civic as fuel efficient as possible, because it is their bread and
butter of fuel efficient cars.

And they've succeeded. Your 03 is, technologically speaking, now a
dinosaur. It can't do with 1.7 liters, 115hp, and a manual transmission
what a new Civic can do with 1.8 leters, 140hp, and an automatic
transmission.