2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
02-22-2006 | 04:27 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
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!
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:35:44 -0600, muzz <jmuzz@charter.net> wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:52:54 -0500, "Flyifyoucan"
><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote:
>
>>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
>>
(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!
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:35:44 -0600, muzz <jmuzz@charter.net> wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:52:54 -0500, "Flyifyoucan"
><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote:
>
>>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
>>
02-22-2006 | 08:18 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:24:06 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:18:14 GMT, Gordon McGrew
><RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:05:17 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:48:26 GMT, "Art"
>>><begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>
>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.
>>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.
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.
>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:18:14 GMT, Gordon McGrew
><RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:05:17 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:48:26 GMT, "Art"
>>><begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>
>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.
>>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.
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.
02-22-2006 | 08:25 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:18:24 GMT, Gordon McGrew
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:24:06 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:18:14 GMT, Gordon McGrew
>><RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:05:17 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:48:26 GMT, "Art"
>>>><begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>>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.
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.
>>>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.
>
>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.
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.
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:24:06 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:18:14 GMT, Gordon McGrew
>><RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:05:17 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:48:26 GMT, "Art"
>>>><begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>>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.
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.
>>>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.
>
>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.
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.
02-23-2006 | 12:09 AM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:25:26 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>
>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.
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
>>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.
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.
>>>>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>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.
Wonder what the SUVs average.
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>
>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.
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
>>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.
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.
>>>>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>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.
Wonder what the SUVs average.
02-23-2006 | 12:37 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
Why not test the vehicles in a wind tunnel-like situation so their
co-efficient of drag comes into play?
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:sj2qv1pe0u81e6o664l76n940m3abr24h4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:24:06 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:18:14 GMT, Gordon McGrew
>><RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:05:17 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:48:26 GMT, "Art"
>>>><begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>>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.
>
> 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.
>
co-efficient of drag comes into play?
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:sj2qv1pe0u81e6o664l76n940m3abr24h4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:24:06 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:18:14 GMT, Gordon McGrew
>><RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:05:17 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:48:26 GMT, "Art"
>>>><begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>>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.
>
> 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.
>
02-23-2006 | 05:47 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:37:38 -0500, "Bob Palmer"
<jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote:
>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.
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:sj2qv1pe0u81e6o664l76n940m3abr24h4@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:24:06 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:18:14 GMT, Gordon McGrew
>>><RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:05:17 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:48:26 GMT, "Art"
>>>>><begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>>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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
<jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote:
>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.
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:sj2qv1pe0u81e6o664l76n940m3abr24h4@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:24:06 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:18:14 GMT, Gordon McGrew
>>><RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:05:17 -0500, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:48:26 GMT, "Art"
>>>>><begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>>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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
02-23-2006 | 08:35 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:cJSdnXcyJM58b2DenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
> 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
news:cJSdnXcyJM58b2DenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
> 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
02-25-2006 | 08:59 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:35:15 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:cJSdnXcyJM58b2DenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@adelphia.co m...
>> 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
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.
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:cJSdnXcyJM58b2DenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@adelphia.co m...
>> 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
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.
02-26-2006 | 03:34 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
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?
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 01:59:08 GMT, Gordon McGrew
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:35:15 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
><michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>>"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>news:cJSdnXcyJM58b2DenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@adelphia.c om...
>>> 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
>
>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.
>
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?
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 01:59:08 GMT, Gordon McGrew
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:35:15 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
><michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>>"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>news:cJSdnXcyJM58b2DenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@adelphia.c om...
>>> 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
>
>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.
>
02-26-2006 | 04:40 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
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-GENE...ay-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/4...0/wcd080f1.asp
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:34:44 -0500, Spazpop2000
<spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>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?
>
>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 01:59:08 GMT, Gordon McGrew
><RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:35:15 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
>><michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bob Palmer" <jenbobkatelyn@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>>news:cJSdnXcyJM58b2DenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@adelphia. com...
>>>> 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
>>
>>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.
>>
03-07-2006 | 11:47 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
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.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:27:34 -0500, Spazpop2000
<spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>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!
>
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:35:44 -0600, muzz <jmuzz@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:52:54 -0500, "Flyifyoucan"
>><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>>
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.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:27:34 -0500, Spazpop2000
<spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>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!
>
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:35:44 -0600, muzz <jmuzz@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:52:54 -0500, "Flyifyoucan"
>><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>>
03-08-2006 | 05:30 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
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...
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:47:59 -0600, CC <cwcjunior@REM.juno.com> wrote:
>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.
>
>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:27:34 -0500, Spazpop2000
><spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>
>>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!
>>
>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:35:44 -0600, muzz <jmuzz@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:52:54 -0500, "Flyifyoucan"
>>><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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
>>>>
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...
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:47:59 -0600, CC <cwcjunior@REM.juno.com> wrote:
>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.
>
>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:27:34 -0500, Spazpop2000
><spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>
>>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!
>>
>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:35:44 -0600, muzz <jmuzz@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:52:54 -0500, "Flyifyoucan"
>>><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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
>>>>
03-30-2006 | 07:59 AM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
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
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:30:40 -0500, Spazpop2000
<spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>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...
>
>On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:47:59 -0600, CC <cwcjunior@REM.juno.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:27:34 -0500, Spazpop2000
>><spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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!
>>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:35:44 -0600, muzz <jmuzz@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:52:54 -0500, "Flyifyoucan"
>>>><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>
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
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:30:40 -0500, Spazpop2000
<spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>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...
>
>On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:47:59 -0600, CC <cwcjunior@REM.juno.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:27:34 -0500, Spazpop2000
>><spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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!
>>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:35:44 -0600, muzz <jmuzz@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:52:54 -0500, "Flyifyoucan"
>>>><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>
03-30-2006 | 07:59 AM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
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
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:30:40 -0500, Spazpop2000
<spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>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...
>
>On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:47:59 -0600, CC <cwcjunior@REM.juno.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:27:34 -0500, Spazpop2000
>><spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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!
>>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:35:44 -0600, muzz <jmuzz@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:52:54 -0500, "Flyifyoucan"
>>>><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>
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
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:30:40 -0500, Spazpop2000
<spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>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...
>
>On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:47:59 -0600, CC <cwcjunior@REM.juno.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:27:34 -0500, Spazpop2000
>><spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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!
>>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:35:44 -0600, muzz <jmuzz@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:52:54 -0500, "Flyifyoucan"
>>>><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>
03-30-2006 | 07:41 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid
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
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 06:59:49 -0600, CC <cwcjunior@REM.juno.com> wrote:
>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
>
>On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:30:40 -0500, Spazpop2000
><spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>
>>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...
>>
>>On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:47:59 -0600, CC <cwcjunior@REM.juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:27:34 -0500, Spazpop2000
>>><spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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!
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:35:44 -0600, muzz <jmuzz@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:52:54 -0500, "Flyifyoucan"
>>>>><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>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
>>>>>>
'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
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 06:59:49 -0600, CC <cwcjunior@REM.juno.com> wrote:
>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
>
>On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:30:40 -0500, Spazpop2000
><spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>
>>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...
>>
>>On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:47:59 -0600, CC <cwcjunior@REM.juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:27:34 -0500, Spazpop2000
>>><spaz_pop@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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!
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:35:44 -0600, muzz <jmuzz@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:52:54 -0500, "Flyifyoucan"
>>>>><jdsnipes@coastalnow.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>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
>>>>>>