my 95 civic got between 40-46 mpg on the highway. my 99 Accord got between 34 and 39 mpg on the highway. My 2002 civic gets from 40-44mpg on the highway. My 95 had296k miles on it when I replaced it,my 99 Accord had 466k when I replaced it, and my 2002 Civic has 336k on it now. My dealer ran diagnostics on my 2010 and said that it is running fine even though it only gets 33mpg on the highway. Any ideas?
Different engine, transmission, car, build characteristics?
According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov, your mileages are pretty much on track.
Sorta…the 99 Accord should have been down in the 27-28 area. The 2002 Civic around 36. The 2010 Civic is supposed to get 34 highway.
All that is assuming the best of the variations, as well. Smallest engine, whatever. You’ve been lucky. Don’t worry, be happy.
Didn’t Honda Civics used to be small cars? Remember small cars? This car has slowly grown into a mid sized sedan.
We have a '95 Civic . . and you’re correct . . . it does get 45 mpg highway almost all of the time. It has 199,000 miles on it. We also have an '89 Accord. It gets 35 mpg on the highway almost all of the time. It has 530,000 miles on it. Last year we bought a 2010 Civic. It only gets 33-34 on the highway. In town it’s low to mid 20s. The new Civic is much bigger than the '95, it’s even bigger than the '89 Accord. IMO the Honda cars of the late 80’s through late 90s are far better than the newer ones, and a lot easier to work on. lust my opinion. Rocketman
I own a 99 Accord and an 08 Accord. My 99 gets better mileage (33mpg vs 29mpg) but my 08 is much larger, heavier and has WAY more power. Both are four cylinder models but the 08 is like a rocket-ship compared to the 99. It’s the same with the Civic. The newer models are bigger, heavier, and more powerful. All three of these things cause more fuel consumption.
Checked the tire pressure? One tire down a bit can drop the fuel mileage.
It’s simple…Just compare the WEIGHT of the vehicles. This is America…Bigger is better. Just look at US!!
Yup. Compared to the older civics, the new ones are land yachts. People want lots of sound insulation and a smooth ride and a lot of electronic toys. Meeting those demands, plus the safety stuff that cars have now that your old Civic didn’t have, adds a lot of weight to the car.
People also, as I’ve mentioned before on here, think my TL is slow because it only does 0-60 as fast as a Lamborghini Miura. And so they had to stuff a big engine in it - hell one model has almost 200hp. In a stock Civic. The same model 15 years ago had half that.
When you combine the demand for heavy components and performance that used to be the exclusive domain of supercars, you’re going to lower your MPG.
Give me back the smaller, weaker, fewer frills versions. (Lately I’ve been thinking how much fun it would be to have another Chevy Chevette). But I guess I’m not the average consumer.
They (barely) sell low frills versions like Chevy Aveo, Nissan Versa, Toyota Yaris. Not sure if I would consider the FIT low frills but its definitely fun.
I have an '03 Civic with the vtec motor and 5spd manual and get about 40mpg at 70 mph on expressway trips. My guess is the newer Civic is larger and heavier than my '03. I’d be disappointed with 33 mpg on highways too. But, I think the newer Civics are tuned more for performance to contend with competing models and in doing so Honda has compromised mpg. More room, more luxury features, and faster 0-60 times sell cars but don’t maximize mpg.
Check to be sure you don’t have a mechanical problem, but this kind of mpg is perhaps what you’ll have to live with.
Shadowfox, but that Muria could top out at 180, something the TL could not come close to.
Here we go again…
The 2010 Civic is rate for 33-36 MPG on the highway. If you have a stick shift it’s rated for 33 MPG and it’s getting exactly what kind of mileage it’s supposed to be getting. If it’s an automatic then it’s rated for 36 MPG, but even in that case 33 MPG is still a reasonable expectation. There is likely nothing wrong with your car.
Curiously no 1999 Accord is rated for better than 28 MPG highway, and the most frugal 1995 Civic is rated for 41 MPG highway, and the best the 2002 Civic is rated for is 36 MPG.
You seem to went from miraculously exceeding the EPA estimates to simply equaling them. I don’t see a reason for concern here.
Neither can the Miura, on public streets, Keith.
But for the record, if the 135mph governor wasn’t in place, it’s estimated the TL would top out within about 20 mph of the Lambo. Not bad for a 4 door family car.
Here are some reported mileages from fueleconomy.gov for the 2010 Civic with an auto transmission. The percentages are city/highway, respectively.
33.9, FL 22%/78%
32.0, VA, 40%/60%
27.0, GA, 40%/60%
You are doing pretty well, according to these real world reports. BTW, how fast are you driving? If you exceed the speed limit, you will reduce your mileage. I have a 5 speed auto Accord and it gets its best mileage around 55 MPH.
I am greatful for all the thoughtful reponses. I am used to Honda engineering exceeding the posted averages. I did not mention that I replaced my 2007 CRV with the 2010 Civic. The CRV got 22-23mpg arround town and 28-29 on the highway. I was expecting a dramatic improvement in fuel economy which is part of my disappointment. I am still puzzled by how my 99 Accord could outperform my 2010 civic. Once again thanks for all the insightful comments.
Your 2010 Civic (2954 lbs) weighs the same as your 1999 Accord (2990 lbs). Your Civic is rated at 197 horsepower and the 1999 Accord is rated at 148 hp. So the math is pretty darned easy. If two cars basically weigh the same amount and one has 50 horsepower MORE then it will get lower mileage, even with fancy computer management of the engine.
Hell, my 1984 Toyota Tercel weighed 1680 lbs and generated a whopping 67 horsepower. It was a pig in a drag race but got as much as 42mpg.
Thanks bloody knuckles. The Civic SI is rated at 197, my car is the SE and is rated at 140 hp. The Civic is lower profile and smaller than the 99 Accord, with similar horsepower, is should outperform the Accord.
Lower profile? What does that mean? Absolutely nothing from an aerodynamics standpoint. Let’s say you have 2 cars. One is a foot shorter than the other, but it’s shaped like a cube. The taller one is shaped like a tear drop. Which do you think will have lower drag? You need to look at the drag coefficient to get some idea of the car’s efficiency, and since the 2010 is built to Euro-spec pedestrian safety standards, which means it has a taller nose, I’d not be surprised if its cd is worse than the Accord.
I used to meet or exceed EPA estimates in every car I drove…and then there was ethanol…