Re: 2006 civic real mileage?
 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-3D59F2.18162122102005@nntp3.usenetserver.com...
> In article <Hgy6f.18894$OM4.3121@dukeread06>, "TWW" <twaugh5@cox.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.
>
Perhaps you are right. It will be interesting to see if the mileage is what
they claim. If so, you will have the best of all worlds -- a car with good
performance and excellent gas mileage. Certainly, it outdoes the old
Accords with 130 hp and 2.2 ltrs.

Re: 2006 civic real mileage?
 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-3D59F2.18162122102005@nntp3.usenetserver.com...
> In article <Hgy6f.18894$OM4.3121@dukeread06>, "TWW" <twaugh5@cox.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.
>
Perhaps you are right. It will be interesting to see if the mileage is what
they claim. If so, you will have the best of all worlds -- a car with good
performance and excellent gas mileage. Certainly, it outdoes the old
Accords with 130 hp and 2.2 ltrs.