2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA
38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg
with the automatic.

What's "wrong" here?

Re: 2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

A. Smith wrote:
> Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA
> 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg
> with the automatic.
>
> What's "wrong" here?

nothing. the system's been programmed to shift for economy - after all,
the ecu /does/ know how much gas is being injected. pretty simple.

Re: 2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

jim beam wrote:
> A. Smith wrote:
> > Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA
> > 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg
> > with the automatic.
> >
> > What's "wrong" here?
>
> nothing. the system's been programmed to shift for economy - after all,
> the ecu /does/ know how much gas is being injected. pretty simple.

Right! I think you'll have a hard time getting lower mileage/gallon
with a stick than an automatic on any of the new cars.

Remco

Re: 2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

"Remco" <whybcuz@yahoo.com> wrote
> jim beam wrote:
> > A. Smith wrote:
> > > Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA
> > > 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg
> > > with the automatic.
> > >
> > > What's "wrong" here?
> >
> > nothing. the system's been programmed to shift for economy - after all,
> > the ecu /does/ know how much gas is being injected. pretty simple.
>
> Right! I think you'll have a hard time getting lower mileage/gallon
> with a stick than an automatic on any of the new cars.

One more voice: In fact, this trend has been going on for several years.
Many automatics have been trumping manual transmission cars for fuel
economy, back to the mid/late 1990s or so, IIRC. "Variable Valve Timing and
Lift Electronic Control" (VTEC) has been a big factor in this, IIRC.

Re: 2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

Yes, I noticed this same thing with the mpg on my 05 CRV.

"Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:RlhWe.106$Gg1.66@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink .net...
> "Remco" <whybcuz@yahoo.com> wrote
>> jim beam wrote:
>> > A. Smith wrote:
>> > > Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA
>> > > 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg
>> > > with the automatic.
>> > >
>> > > What's "wrong" here?
>> >
>> > nothing. the system's been programmed to shift for economy - after
>> > all,
>> > the ecu /does/ know how much gas is being injected. pretty simple.
>>
>> Right! I think you'll have a hard time getting lower mileage/gallon
>> with a stick than an automatic on any of the new cars.
>
> One more voice: In fact, this trend has been going on for several years.
> Many automatics have been trumping manual transmission cars for fuel
> economy, back to the mid/late 1990s or so, IIRC. "Variable Valve Timing
> and
> Lift Electronic Control" (VTEC) has been a big factor in this, IIRC.
>
>

Re: 2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

"A. Smith" <ecarecar@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:11iipt7ddi5mq62@corp.supernews.com:

> Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA
> 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg
> with the automatic.
>
> What's "wrong" here?
>


Nothing at all.

Modern automatics are astonishingly efficient. Manuals are subject to user
ineptness.

I'd say about 99.999% of manual transmission users cannot shift as well as
a modern computer-controlled automatic. And that includes me.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Re: 2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

"Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:RlhWe.106$Gg1.66@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink .net:

> "Remco" <whybcuz@yahoo.com> wrote
>> jim beam wrote:
>> > A. Smith wrote:
>> > > Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA
>> > > 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg
>> > > with the automatic.
>> > >
>> > > What's "wrong" here?
>> >
>> > nothing. the system's been programmed to shift for economy - after
>> > all, the ecu /does/ know how much gas is being injected. pretty
>> > simple.
>>
>> Right! I think you'll have a hard time getting lower mileage/gallon
>> with a stick than an automatic on any of the new cars.
>
> One more voice: In fact, this trend has been going on for several
> years. Many automatics have been trumping manual transmission cars for
> fuel economy, back to the mid/late 1990s or so, IIRC. "Variable Valve
> Timing and Lift Electronic Control" (VTEC) has been a big factor in
> this, IIRC.
>
>
>


Automatics are far better than manuals all around these days. Computerized
electronic controls trump human brains and muscles hands down.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Re: 2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

"TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns96D2DDE579871tegger@207.14.113.17...
> "A. Smith" <ecarecar@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:11iipt7ddi5mq62@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA
>> 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg
>> with the automatic.
>>
>> What's "wrong" here?
>>
>
>
> Nothing at all.
>
> Modern automatics are astonishingly efficient. Manuals are subject to user
> ineptness.
>
> I'd say about 99.999% of manual transmission users cannot shift as well as
> a modern computer-controlled automatic. And that includes me.
>
> --
> TeGGeR®
>
> The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
> www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

I noticed some automatics were getting better mpg than a manual - sometimes
only for city or highway. Can't remember which.

They both have their good and bad points. I love the control and "fun
factor" of the stick, as long as I'm not in heavy traffic. ie - D.C. or
Manhattan. That only happens sometimes for me when I drive there. Still
bought a '05 Accord LX 5-speed and love the 5-speed. It'll be a pain to
sell later, I know - but don't plan to sell any time soon. Been averaging
27 mpg w/mostly city and some highway. Got over 34mpg round trip between
Baltimore County and NYC last week. The trip was mostly 65-80 mph with the
a/c on during most of the trip.

-Dave

Re: 2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:23:00 -0400, "A. Smith" <ecarecar@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA
>38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg
>with the automatic.
>
>What's "wrong" here?

nothing. in a contrived and non-realistic test one gets better figures
than another. Its a lot easier to program a computer to shift at
different times, than it is to get a person to shift at the optimum
times for these STATIC tests.

Re: 2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

"Dave L" <davelieuREMOVE@MEyahoo.com> wrote in
news:Hqidna9x7q1mqbbeRVn-vg@comcast.com:

>
> "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
> news:Xns96D2DDE579871tegger@207.14.113.17...
>> "A. Smith" <ecarecar@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:11iipt7ddi5mq62@corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>> Honda's web site says the 2006 Civic gets EPA
>>> 38 mpg with the manual transmission and 40 mpg
>>> with the automatic.
>>>
>>> What's "wrong" here?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing at all.
>>
>> Modern automatics are astonishingly efficient. Manuals are subject to
>> user ineptness.
>>
>> I'd say about 99.999% of manual transmission users cannot shift as
>> well as a modern computer-controlled automatic. And that includes me.
>>
>
> I noticed some automatics were getting better mpg than a manual -
> sometimes only for city or highway. Can't remember which.
>
> They both have their good and bad points. I love the control and "fun
> factor" of the stick, as long as I'm not in heavy traffic.


I like my manual in any case. Just today I spent a half-hour blipping
forwards a few feet at a time on the freeway to get past an accident.
Better that than lose control the rest of the time with an automatic. Don't
like trannies that change gear all by themselves...


> ie - D.C.
> or Manhattan.


Or the 405 in LA at rush hour(s)...




--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Re: 2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

"TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns96D3DDEF9EB23tegger@207.14.113.17...
>
> I like my manual in any case. Just today I spent a half-hour blipping
> forwards a few feet at a time on the freeway to get past an accident.
> Better that than lose control the rest of the time with an automatic.

This last sentence is quite the bizarre statement. Are you saying that you
can't maintain care and control of a vehicle with an automatic transmission?
If you're not saying that, what thought exactly are you trying to convey?
{;^)

Brian

Re: 2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
news:K1SWe.171790$wr.34624@clgrps12...
>
> "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
> news:Xns96D3DDEF9EB23tegger@207.14.113.17...
>>
>> I like my manual in any case. Just today I spent a half-hour blipping
>> forwards a few feet at a time on the freeway to get past an accident.
>> Better that than lose control the rest of the time with an automatic.
>
> This last sentence is quite the bizarre statement. Are you saying that you
> can't maintain care and control of a vehicle with an automatic
> transmission? If you're not saying that, what thought exactly are you
> trying to convey? {;^)
>
> Brian
>
>
I think the sentiment is the same I have with automatic transmissions - they
choose the gear they think is best, which isn't always suited to my purpose.
It is more often a subjective thing than an objective thing, but the bottom
line is that 100% of the time the manual tranny is in the gear I want while
an automatic rates more like 90%... with the remaining 10% being annoying. I
especially hate automatic shifts on slippery roads. It's like having a demon
give your car a little *nudge* whenever he feels like it.

My job takes me off-road a lot (I describe the job as "taking computer age
skills to the end of bronze age roads in any weather at any time"). Some of
the roads are intense 4WD, others are miles-long sand pits. Some people
don't mind automatics in their trucks, but I had to borrow a truck with an
automatic once and I swore I'd never do that again. It upshifted when it
wanted, not when I wanted.

To each their own.

Mike

Re: 2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
> news:K1SWe.171790$wr.34624@clgrps12...
>
>>"TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
>>news:Xns96D3DDEF9EB23tegger@207.14.113.17...
>>
>>>I like my manual in any case. Just today I spent a half-hour blipping
>>>forwards a few feet at a time on the freeway to get past an accident.
>>>Better that than lose control the rest of the time with an automatic.
>>
>>This last sentence is quite the bizarre statement. Are you saying that you
>>can't maintain care and control of a vehicle with an automatic
>>transmission? If you're not saying that, what thought exactly are you
>>trying to convey? {;^)
>>
>>Brian
>>
>>
>
> I think the sentiment is the same I have with automatic transmissions - they
> choose the gear they think is best, which isn't always suited to my purpose.
> It is more often a subjective thing than an objective thing, but the bottom
> line is that 100% of the time the manual tranny is in the gear I want while
> an automatic rates more like 90%... with the remaining 10% being annoying. I
> especially hate automatic shifts on slippery roads. It's like having a demon
> give your car a little *nudge* whenever he feels like it.
>
> My job takes me off-road a lot (I describe the job as "taking computer age
> skills to the end of bronze age roads in any weather at any time"). Some of
> the roads are intense 4WD, others are miles-long sand pits. Some people
> don't mind automatics in their trucks, but I had to borrow a truck with an
> automatic once and I swore I'd never do that again. It upshifted when it
> wanted, not when I wanted.
>
> To each their own.
>
> Mike
>
>
what vintage automatic truck was it and did it have electronic shift
control? and how can it upshift when you have manual over-ride?

Re: 2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:UuydnQ-F6pBErrHeRVn-rQ@speakeasy.net...
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>> "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
>> news:K1SWe.171790$wr.34624@clgrps12...
>>
>>>"TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns96D3DDEF9EB23tegger@207.14.113.17...
>>>
>>>>I like my manual in any case. Just today I spent a half-hour blipping
>>>>forwards a few feet at a time on the freeway to get past an accident.
>>>>Better that than lose control the rest of the time with an automatic.
>>>
>>>This last sentence is quite the bizarre statement. Are you saying that
>>>you can't maintain care and control of a vehicle with an automatic
>>>transmission? If you're not saying that, what thought exactly are you
>>>trying to convey? {;^)
>>>
>>>Brian
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think the sentiment is the same I have with automatic transmissions -
>> they choose the gear they think is best, which isn't always suited to my
>> purpose. It is more often a subjective thing than an objective thing, but
>> the bottom line is that 100% of the time the manual tranny is in the gear
>> I want while an automatic rates more like 90%... with the remaining 10%
>> being annoying. I especially hate automatic shifts on slippery roads.
>> It's like having a demon give your car a little *nudge* whenever he feels
>> like it.
>>
>> My job takes me off-road a lot (I describe the job as "taking computer
>> age skills to the end of bronze age roads in any weather at any time").
>> Some of the roads are intense 4WD, others are miles-long sand pits. Some
>> people don't mind automatics in their trucks, but I had to borrow a truck
>> with an automatic once and I swore I'd never do that again. It upshifted
>> when it wanted, not when I wanted.
>>
>> To each their own.
>>
>> Mike
> what vintage automatic truck was it and did it have electronic shift
> control? and how can it upshift when you have manual over-ride?
>
It was a 1993 Ford F-250, but I doubt the new ones are any better. Our
department standard is manuals, both for ruggedness and control, but the guy
who originally had the truck insisted on an automatic. He was pretty odd
anyway. Automatics can be forced to downshift but (most) can't be forced to
upshift. You can allow it to shift, but the actual upshift takes place when
it's ready, not when you're ready.

I also can't stand the loss of being able to tell when the wheels are
spinning by listening to the engine sound - but for those who never
encounter mud, snow or ice it probably isn't a consideration.

I agree that automatics are nice for driving around town or on the highway
in good conditions.

Mike

Re: 2006 Civic 38 mpg manual 40 mpg automatic?
 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:UuydnQ-F6pBErrHeRVn-rQ@speakeasy.net...
>
>>Michael Pardee wrote:
>>
>>>"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
>>>news:K1SWe.171790$wr.34624@clgrps12...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
>>>>news:Xns96D3DDEF9EB23tegger@207.14.113.17...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I like my manual in any case. Just today I spent a half-hour blipping
>>>>>forwards a few feet at a time on the freeway to get past an accident.
>>>>>Better that than lose control the rest of the time with an automatic.
>>>>
>>>>This last sentence is quite the bizarre statement. Are you saying that
>>>>you can't maintain care and control of a vehicle with an automatic
>>>>transmission? If you're not saying that, what thought exactly are you
>>>>trying to convey? {;^)
>>>>
>>>>Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think the sentiment is the same I have with automatic transmissions -
>>>they choose the gear they think is best, which isn't always suited to my
>>>purpose. It is more often a subjective thing than an objective thing, but
>>>the bottom line is that 100% of the time the manual tranny is in the gear
>>>I want while an automatic rates more like 90%... with the remaining 10%
>>>being annoying. I especially hate automatic shifts on slippery roads.
>>>It's like having a demon give your car a little *nudge* whenever he feels
>>>like it.
>>>
>>>My job takes me off-road a lot (I describe the job as "taking computer
>>>age skills to the end of bronze age roads in any weather at any time").
>>>Some of the roads are intense 4WD, others are miles-long sand pits. Some
>>>people don't mind automatics in their trucks, but I had to borrow a truck
>>>with an automatic once and I swore I'd never do that again. It upshifted
>>>when it wanted, not when I wanted.
>>>
>>>To each their own.
>>>
>>>Mike
>>
>>what vintage automatic truck was it and did it have electronic shift
>>control? and how can it upshift when you have manual over-ride?
>>
>
> It was a 1993 Ford F-250, but I doubt the new ones are any better. Our
> department standard is manuals, both for ruggedness and control, but the guy
> who originally had the truck insisted on an automatic. He was pretty odd
> anyway. Automatics can be forced to downshift but (most) can't be forced to
> upshift. You can allow it to shift, but the actual upshift takes place when
> it's ready, not when you're ready.
>
> I also can't stand the loss of being able to tell when the wheels are
> spinning by listening to the engine sound - but for those who never
> encounter mud, snow or ice it probably isn't a consideration.
>
> I agree that automatics are nice for driving around town or on the highway
> in good conditions.
>
> Mike
>
>
don't get me wrong, i'm not knocking your preference, but i don't
understand the upshift bit. it /can't/ upshift if you're manually
over-riding it. if you want it to shift "prematurely" for traction in
snow or mug, it shouldn't matter once you're under way. and with the
honda, you /do/ have the ability to pull away in "2", where first gear
will not engage.