99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

Please correct me if I am wrong but I think that the 99 & 2000 Civic SI
is the one with the 1.6 twin cam V-Tech and that is the car I am
interested in.

I have been thinking about looking for a used SI of this era but I was
dissappointed to look at the EPA fuel economy ratings for the SI.
Although I love to drive hard on occasion I generally drive for fuel
economy. I would think that by keeping the revs down and driving on
the mild cam profiles one could get excellent economy but this does not
seem to be the case. I think the SI's are geared much lower than than
the other Civics and perhaps this is the reason.

What kind of fuel economy are 99 & 2000 Civic SI oweners getting in the
real world?

Has anybody attempted to get maximum mpg from there SI and what was the
result? Does anybody know what type of milegae an SI will get when
cruising at 65-70 mph on the highway?

I assume this is all on premium gasoline.

I have a 94 DX 5-speed and am getting fabulous mileage on regular gas.
Always over 30 mpg and up to 45 mpg on the highway.

Thanks in advance,

Mike

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

hoza.2@osu.edu wrote:
> Please correct me if I am wrong but I think that the 99 & 2000 Civic SI
> is the one with the 1.6 twin cam V-Tech and that is the car I am
> interested in.
>
> I have been thinking about looking for a used SI of this era but I was
> dissappointed to look at the EPA fuel economy ratings for the SI.
> Although I love to drive hard on occasion I generally drive for fuel
> economy. I would think that by keeping the revs down and driving on
> the mild cam profiles one could get excellent economy but this does not
> seem to be the case. I think the SI's are geared much lower than than
> the other Civics and perhaps this is the reason.
>
Exactly. Si models are geared for fun. If fuel economy is a priority
mundane civic would work better for you.

> I have a 94 DX 5-speed and am getting fabulous mileage on regular gas.
> Always over 30 mpg and up to 45 mpg on the highway.

So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
that is a part of the package?

Still in your 20s I take it?

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

hoza.2@osu.edu wrote:
> Please correct me if I am wrong but I think that the 99 & 2000 Civic SI
> is the one with the 1.6 twin cam V-Tech and that is the car I am
> interested in.
>
> I have been thinking about looking for a used SI of this era but I was
> dissappointed to look at the EPA fuel economy ratings for the SI.
> Although I love to drive hard on occasion I generally drive for fuel
> economy. I would think that by keeping the revs down and driving on
> the mild cam profiles one could get excellent economy but this does not
> seem to be the case. I think the SI's are geared much lower than than
> the other Civics and perhaps this is the reason.
>
Exactly. Si models are geared for fun. If fuel economy is a priority
mundane civic would work better for you.

> I have a 94 DX 5-speed and am getting fabulous mileage on regular gas.
> Always over 30 mpg and up to 45 mpg on the highway.

So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
that is a part of the package?

Still in your 20s I take it?

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

hoza.2@osu.edu wrote:
> Please correct me if I am wrong but I think that the 99 & 2000 Civic SI
> is the one with the 1.6 twin cam V-Tech and that is the car I am
> interested in.
>
> I have been thinking about looking for a used SI of this era but I was
> dissappointed to look at the EPA fuel economy ratings for the SI.
> Although I love to drive hard on occasion I generally drive for fuel
> economy. I would think that by keeping the revs down and driving on
> the mild cam profiles one could get excellent economy but this does not
> seem to be the case. I think the SI's are geared much lower than than
> the other Civics and perhaps this is the reason.
>
Exactly. Si models are geared for fun. If fuel economy is a priority
mundane civic would work better for you.

> I have a 94 DX 5-speed and am getting fabulous mileage on regular gas.
> Always over 30 mpg and up to 45 mpg on the highway.

So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
that is a part of the package?

Still in your 20s I take it?

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

hoza.2@osu.edu wrote:
> Please correct me if I am wrong but I think that the 99 & 2000 Civic SI
> is the one with the 1.6 twin cam V-Tech and that is the car I am
> interested in.
>
> I have been thinking about looking for a used SI of this era but I was
> dissappointed to look at the EPA fuel economy ratings for the SI.
> Although I love to drive hard on occasion I generally drive for fuel
> economy. I would think that by keeping the revs down and driving on
> the mild cam profiles one could get excellent economy but this does not
> seem to be the case. I think the SI's are geared much lower than than
> the other Civics and perhaps this is the reason.
>
Exactly. Si models are geared for fun. If fuel economy is a priority
mundane civic would work better for you.

> I have a 94 DX 5-speed and am getting fabulous mileage on regular gas.
> Always over 30 mpg and up to 45 mpg on the highway.

So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
that is a part of the package?

Still in your 20s I take it?

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

> So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
> that is a part of the package?
>
> Still in your 20s I take it?

Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
to economy. The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
possible (like the old folks that we are!).

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

> So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
> that is a part of the package?
>
> Still in your 20s I take it?

Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
to economy. The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
possible (like the old folks that we are!).

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

> So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
> that is a part of the package?
>
> Still in your 20s I take it?

Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
to economy. The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
possible (like the old folks that we are!).

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

> So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
> that is a part of the package?
>
> Still in your 20s I take it?

Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
to economy. The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
possible (like the old folks that we are!).

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

> So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
> that is a part of the package?
>
> Still in your 20s I take it?

Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
to economy. The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
possible (like the old folks that we are!).

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

> So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
> that is a part of the package?
>
> Still in your 20s I take it?

Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
to economy. The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
possible (like the old folks that we are!).

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

> So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
> that is a part of the package?
>
> Still in your 20s I take it?

Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
to economy. The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
possible (like the old folks that we are!).

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

> So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
> that is a part of the package?
>
> Still in your 20s I take it?

Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
to economy. The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
possible (like the old folks that we are!).

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

hoza.2@osu.edu wrote:
>> So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
>> that is a part of the package?
>>
>> Still in your 20s I take it?
>
> Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
> to economy.

there are v-tecs that do this, but the si isn't one of them - it's
simply tuned for performance. look at an ex if you're more economy
oriented.

> The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
> sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
> lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
> of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
> city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
> vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
> anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
> likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
> I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
> all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
> past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
> and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
> happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
> possible (like the old folks that we are!).
>

Re: 99 & 2000 Civic SI fuel mileage?
 

hoza.2@osu.edu wrote:
>> So you want a fun car but you don't want to pay for the lower mileage
>> that is a part of the package?
>>
>> Still in your 20s I take it?
>
> Not really, I'm just wondering why V-Tech doesn't help more with regard
> to economy.

there are v-tecs that do this, but the si isn't one of them - it's
simply tuned for performance. look at an ex if you're more economy
oriented.

> The promise of V-Tech is that, with effectively having two
> sets of cams, one CAN have the best of two worlds--the docile idle,
> lower rpm torque, and better economy on the prime cam lobes, and lots
> of high reving power on the secondary lobes. The EPA estimates of 26
> city & 31 highway seem very low but as we all know "your milage may
> vary". I tend to do better than EPA estimates and I was wondering if
> anybody with an SI is too. Of course, a sample of SI owners would
> likely be skewed toward owners who dive for fun rather than economy but
> I am interested in what is possible rather than what is average. After
> all, there may be a few SI owners like me, in their fifties and well
> past the boy racer stage, who occasionally want the kick in the pants
> and sound of a sweet high reving engine but more often than not are
> happy to trundle along in as unobtrusive and economical manner as
> possible (like the old folks that we are!).
>