mpg 1997 civic
 

I was looking at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and it rates my vehicle at
37 (city) and 40 (hwy). With the way I drive I have never been real
close to that. Never, not even when I first bought the vehicle. I can
get a combined 35-37 pretty easily with my drving style. What is the
real mpg for my vehicle and how do they come up with the high numbers
posted on that web site.
I check my 2003 3L v6 camery on that site and they are low on the city
and just right on the hwy. what gives, anyone with a better place to
look?

Thanks

john
http://johntaylor.somee.com

Re: mpg 1997 civic
 

Your right foot.

runsrealfast wrote:

> anyone with a better place to
>look?
>
>Thanks
>
>john
>http://johntaylor.somee.com
>
>
>

Re: mpg 1997 civic
 

Your right foot.

runsrealfast wrote:

> anyone with a better place to
>look?
>
>Thanks
>
>john
>http://johntaylor.somee.com
>
>
>

Re: mpg 1997 civic
 

Your right foot.

runsrealfast wrote:

> anyone with a better place to
>look?
>
>Thanks
>
>john
>http://johntaylor.somee.com
>
>
>

Re: mpg 1997 civic
 

I had the opposite experience.
Both my 1990 and 2004 got a couple mpg better
than the EPA rating. (Except in winter with
that weak ethonal.)

Re: mpg 1997 civic
 

I had the opposite experience.
Both my 1990 and 2004 got a couple mpg better
than the EPA rating. (Except in winter with
that weak ethonal.)

Re: mpg 1997 civic
 

I had the opposite experience.
Both my 1990 and 2004 got a couple mpg better
than the EPA rating. (Except in winter with
that weak ethonal.)

Re: mpg 1997 civic
 

ecarecar wrote:
> Your right foot.
>

Yeah coming from Cali to Idaho its hard for me not to want to punch it
down to the floor board, people here think I'm nuts but I fit in great
in Sacramento. I'm actually pretty good in the city its the highway
where i'm bad.

john

Re: mpg 1997 civic
 

ecarecar wrote:
> Your right foot.
>

Yeah coming from Cali to Idaho its hard for me not to want to punch it
down to the floor board, people here think I'm nuts but I fit in great
in Sacramento. I'm actually pretty good in the city its the highway
where i'm bad.

john

Re: mpg 1997 civic
 

ecarecar wrote:
> Your right foot.
>

Yeah coming from Cali to Idaho its hard for me not to want to punch it
down to the floor board, people here think I'm nuts but I fit in great
in Sacramento. I'm actually pretty good in the city its the highway
where i'm bad.

john

Re: mpg 1997 civic
 

runsrealfast wrote:
> I was looking at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and it rates my vehicle at
> 37 (city) and 40 (hwy). With the way I drive I have never been real
> close to that. Never, not even when I first bought the vehicle. I can
> get a combined 35-37 pretty easily with my drving style. What is the
> real mpg for my vehicle and how do they come up with the high numbers
> posted on that web site.
> I check my 2003 3L v6 camery on that site and they are low on the city
> and just right on the hwy. what gives, anyone with a better place to
> look?
>
> Thanks
>
> john
> http://johntaylor.somee.com

Which trim level do you have? The numbers you are saying sound a
little high for the EPA estimate unless you have the HX. For my 97 EX
(4 cyl, 1.6, Manual (5 sp) , Regular Gasoline, VTEC (FFS) on their
list) the numbers listed (30/36) match up pretty well with the ~35mpg I
get with mostly highway driving.

Re: mpg 1997 civic
 

runsrealfast wrote:
> I was looking at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and it rates my vehicle at
> 37 (city) and 40 (hwy). With the way I drive I have never been real
> close to that. Never, not even when I first bought the vehicle. I can
> get a combined 35-37 pretty easily with my drving style. What is the
> real mpg for my vehicle and how do they come up with the high numbers
> posted on that web site.
> I check my 2003 3L v6 camery on that site and they are low on the city
> and just right on the hwy. what gives, anyone with a better place to
> look?
>
> Thanks
>
> john
> http://johntaylor.somee.com

Which trim level do you have? The numbers you are saying sound a
little high for the EPA estimate unless you have the HX. For my 97 EX
(4 cyl, 1.6, Manual (5 sp) , Regular Gasoline, VTEC (FFS) on their
list) the numbers listed (30/36) match up pretty well with the ~35mpg I
get with mostly highway driving.

Re: mpg 1997 civic
 

runsrealfast wrote:
> I was looking at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and it rates my vehicle at
> 37 (city) and 40 (hwy). With the way I drive I have never been real
> close to that. Never, not even when I first bought the vehicle. I can
> get a combined 35-37 pretty easily with my drving style. What is the
> real mpg for my vehicle and how do they come up with the high numbers
> posted on that web site.
> I check my 2003 3L v6 camery on that site and they are low on the city
> and just right on the hwy. what gives, anyone with a better place to
> look?
>
> Thanks
>
> john
> http://johntaylor.somee.com

Which trim level do you have? The numbers you are saying sound a
little high for the EPA estimate unless you have the HX. For my 97 EX
(4 cyl, 1.6, Manual (5 sp) , Regular Gasoline, VTEC (FFS) on their
list) the numbers listed (30/36) match up pretty well with the ~35mpg I
get with mostly highway driving.

Re: mpg 1997 civic
 

runsrealfast wrote:

> I was looking at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and it rates my vehicle at
> 37 (city) and 40 (hwy). With the way I drive I have never been real
> close to that. Never, not even when I first bought the vehicle. I can
> get a combined 35-37 pretty easily with my drving style. What is the
> real mpg for my vehicle and how do they come up with the high numbers
> posted on that web site.

> I check my 2003 3L v6 camery on that site and they are low on the city
> and just right on the hwy. what gives, anyone with a better place to
> look?
>
> Thanks
>
> john
> http://johntaylor.somee.com

It all depends! The only 'real' MPG is the one you are getting. :)

As I understand it, all those EPA estimates are done in a lab, and are
based on exhaust carbon mass and other data. Apparently their modelling
is not always so accurate.... EPA says 22/27 for me, I'm getting
32+/35+. I must drive like my dead-and-buried granny; all my vehicles
have exceeded EPA by a fair margin, even a guzzling Cherokee.

Freeway mileage is greatly dependent on speed. FWIW, my Accord ('92,
2.2L, 5-spd) gets 36~38 when tootling along two lane highways at 50~55,
but only 30~31 on the superslab at around 75. (These numbers don't
reflect many refils, so are ballpark only.) Your Civic, being smaller,
will probably be less sensitive to aero drag (compared with other
losses) and may have a faster 'sweet spot.' Still, most any vehicle
will do better when driven at somewhat reduced freeway speeds.

City driving is about anticipating red lights/stop signs and
gliding/coasting as much as is practical. Anytime you use the brake,
you are wasting gas, and dissipated energy goes up with the square of
the speed. If you forsee a stop ahead, gently ease off early, as much
as following traffic will tolerate. Braking to a stop from 40 wastes
nearly twice the energy as from 30.

-Greg

Re: mpg 1997 civic
 

runsrealfast wrote:

> I was looking at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and it rates my vehicle at
> 37 (city) and 40 (hwy). With the way I drive I have never been real
> close to that. Never, not even when I first bought the vehicle. I can
> get a combined 35-37 pretty easily with my drving style. What is the
> real mpg for my vehicle and how do they come up with the high numbers
> posted on that web site.

> I check my 2003 3L v6 camery on that site and they are low on the city
> and just right on the hwy. what gives, anyone with a better place to
> look?
>
> Thanks
>
> john
> http://johntaylor.somee.com

It all depends! The only 'real' MPG is the one you are getting. :)

As I understand it, all those EPA estimates are done in a lab, and are
based on exhaust carbon mass and other data. Apparently their modelling
is not always so accurate.... EPA says 22/27 for me, I'm getting
32+/35+. I must drive like my dead-and-buried granny; all my vehicles
have exceeded EPA by a fair margin, even a guzzling Cherokee.

Freeway mileage is greatly dependent on speed. FWIW, my Accord ('92,
2.2L, 5-spd) gets 36~38 when tootling along two lane highways at 50~55,
but only 30~31 on the superslab at around 75. (These numbers don't
reflect many refils, so are ballpark only.) Your Civic, being smaller,
will probably be less sensitive to aero drag (compared with other
losses) and may have a faster 'sweet spot.' Still, most any vehicle
will do better when driven at somewhat reduced freeway speeds.

City driving is about anticipating red lights/stop signs and
gliding/coasting as much as is practical. Anytime you use the brake,
you are wasting gas, and dissipated energy goes up with the square of
the speed. If you forsee a stop ahead, gently ease off early, as much
as following traffic will tolerate. Braking to a stop from 40 wastes
nearly twice the energy as from 30.

-Greg