MPG Great fuel consumption

[Accord Owner wants Civic]

Originally Posted by thunt

Just picked up my 2.2 EX today - 10months old, 9500 miles. Had it on cruise at 82mph all the way from Stoke to Devon (200 miles).

I only got 41mpg. I was expecting much better than that. Does it take some time before the averages are worked out? I zeroed everything when I picked thed car up.

Also, zeroed setting B whist on the motorway at 82mph and the average speed showed 76 mph??

Did you have air con, headlights, screen heater, heavy loads, under-inflated tyres, the wind against you... all could contribute. And especially the addictive use of the turbo. I would expect to get a consistent 45-55mpg in my ES although the EX is a little more thirsty due (I think) to the wheels and tyres it has.

By the way, you do know there are 6 gears? I ask because a friend hadn't realised her Megane has a 6 speed box until I pointed it out, 400 miles into a journey across France.

[slick]

Best fuel consumption is between 40 and 60 MPH. you will do ok at 70-75 but over that the engine is working harder to maintain your speed above its natural tick over. if revs are kept between 1500 - 2000 you will get the best returns.

i do alot of mohtorway driving, doing roughly 500 miles aweek. and find that when i cruise with the traffic at about 65 -70 i can get 52 mpg. if i get stuck in really slow traffic say 30-40 mph i can get over 55 mpg. if i hammer it cos i'm in a rush i'll only get into the 40's abound 44 MPG.

tips are use the cruise control its more economical than you. smooth acceleration not jsut to plant it. get into 6 and then stay there no need for lots of down changing.

i once got 68 mpg out of the tank on a drive of about 40 miles but i drove it like i was in a funeral prosession. and i don't plan to do my daily drive like that every day.

[Charles_Harding]

Originally Posted by thunt

Just picked up my 2.2 EX today - 10months old, 9500 miles. Had it on cruise at 82mph all the way from Stoke to Devon (200 miles).

I only got 41mpg. I was expecting much better than that. Does it take some time before the averages are worked out? I zeroed everything when I picked thed car up.

Also, zeroed setting B whist on the motorway at 82mph and the average speed showed 76 mph??

You've got to help out the motor yourself.

If you wish to drive at such speeds I would assume that you accelerate to those speeds, after slowing down occasionally, with great enthusiasum!

Give the poor motor a chance.

You've got to pay for that performance somewhere!

"The next train due in at platform 4 is Stevenson's Rocket.
......British Rail wish to apologise for the late arrival of this train......!"

[GerryJ]

Are your fuel consumption figures based on the on board computer? The computer can be 10% over reading.

[Type S Bournemouth]

That makes it worse!!!

[thunt]

It was based on what the fuel computer says. I do a lot of miles each week - always use cruise control and 6th gear.

I've really just driven exatcly the same as I have done in my Megane (for the last 75000 miles) which returned 47mpg.

I'll give it a bit more time - maybe the elements were not in my favour.

[GerryJ]

I mainly drive very short distances and I have kept a record of my M.P.G. since new, both the computer readings and doing it the old fashion way, (fill the tank with fuel then divide it into the miles done since last fill up), and the computer has over read by an average of 9.66%. I have done just under 10,000 miles. I have found the only way to get the true M.P.G. is by doing it the old way.

[alanwalne]

Originally Posted by thunt

It was based on what the fuel computer says. I do a lot of miles each week - always use cruise control and 6th gear.

I've really just driven exatcly the same as I have done in my Megane (for the last 75000 miles) which returned 47mpg.

I'll give it a bit more time - maybe the elements were not in my favour.

If the Renault was a 1.5 DCi, you will see a big difference.

In the Honda, I see a huge difference if you go anything over 2000 revs

[thunt]

It was a 1.9 120bhp Megane. Claimed combined MPG - 52 I think. Achieved 47MPG.

Civic claimed combined MPG 53 (from memory) - achieved 40MPG.

I would expect a modern diesel to be achieving 50+ (my colleague has a BMW 3 series and gets 51MPG and drives 80-90mph)

[subha071171]

I have done 30,000 miles in my 2.2 litre diesel and have always used Shell Diesel extra, also kept my tyre pressure the same. I have managed to get 500 miles out of the fuel tank. recently i bought some Redex Diesel treatment which you put in after you have filled the tank up. This should give more mpg tooo.

[Accord Owner wants Civic]

Originally Posted by thunt

Civic claimed combined MPG 53 (from memory) - achieved 40MPG.

That is about right. My computer currently reading 54MPG, it's usually about 48MPG because most of my driving is around town with a cold engine.

The 54MPG came from a busy weekend driving across country on mixed roads. I don't hang around or worry about the number of lights on the rev/economy meters.

[alanwalne]

Originally Posted by thunt

It was a 1.9 120bhp Megane. Claimed combined MPG - 52 I think. Achieved 47MPG.

Civic claimed combined MPG 53 (from memory) - achieved 40MPG.

I would expect a modern diesel to be achieving 50+ (my colleague has a BMW 3 series and gets 51MPG and drives 80-90mph)

Before my Civic I had a 1.9 DCi (120) Scenic and I am slightly disappointed with the economy of the Civic.

However I have found that a very slight difference in driving style has a lot more effect on the Civic than it used to in the Renault and doing 80 on the speedo in the Civic is just outside its economy zone.

BMW's for a while have been the most economical in their class by a good margin, especially if it one of the new 'stop start' models.

[thunt]

Just an update after a few weeks. MPG is now showing as 49.1, so can't complain about that.

[ivankotor]

my computer shows 10l/100km average 1.8 iVTEC

[electric]

My petrol EX has never bettered 30mpg crawling around London.

After a motorway drve I can get 36mpg but it then gradually drops to 30 but it never goes lower. I wonder if Honda have programmed it never to show worse than 30mpg on a tank of petrol.

The car has only done 500 miles. Do you think mpg will improve eventualy?

[Woette]

Originally Posted by electric

My petrol EX has never bettered 30mpg crawling around London.

After a motorway drve I can get 36mpg but it then gradually drops to 30 but it never goes lower. I wonder if Honda have programmed it never to show worse than 30mpg on a tank of petrol.

The car has only done 500 miles. Do you think mpg will improve eventualy?

yes it will improve, 500 miles is not much at all for the engine to be completely run in. mine is now aroud 5000 miles and i can see a drop in mpg. So just give it some time.

[jazzman]

Originally Posted by electric

My petrol EX has never bettered 30mpg crawling around London.

After a motorway drve I can get 36mpg but it then gradually drops to 30 but it never goes lower. I wonder if Honda have programmed it never to show worse than 30mpg on a tank of petrol.

The car has only done 500 miles. Do you think mpg will improve eventualy?

My beauty has averaged 38.9 mpg overall for the 7000 miles we have done so far. Out of town motoring at legal speeds always gives us well over 40 mpg
You engine is still very new give it at least 1500 miles and you will see an constant improvement.

[sallycivic22ctdi]

My 2.2ctdi ES car's only done 2800 miles, so I think it is yet to fully run in but economy is rather poor and even driving it at 65mph I am lucky to get much over 53mpg.

This compares to 65-70mpg when I drive my wife's Ford Focus 1.6TDCI. That said, the Civic has a lot more power and I suspect that the variable valve timing comes into play increasing performance during acceleration, at the expense of economy. I must say that I find the book economy figures a little hard to believe. I hope it improves as with the current diesel price hikes I am tending to use the Focus to save money.

The 53mpg on a long run soon becomes 35mpg around town and worse still after encountering any kind of traffic congestion. These figures are from the on-board computer. When I checked them against filling the car up I found that the actual MPG was around 2mpg better than the computer reading suggested. This goes against the findings on the forum (~4mpg worse for on-board computer).

[Steeph]

Originally Posted by sallycivic22ctdi

My 2.2ctdi ES car's only done 2800 miles, so I think it is yet to fully run in but economy is rather poor and even driving it at 65mph I am lucky to get much over 53mpg.

This compares to 65-70mpg when I drive my wife's Ford Focus 1.6TDCI. That said, the Civic has a lot more power and I suspect that the variable valve timing comes into play increasing performance during acceleration, at the expense of economy. I must say that I find the book economy figures a little hard to believe. I hope it improves as with the current diesel price hikes I am tending to use the Focus to save money.

The book economy figures are always 15-20% optimistic, for every manufacturer. So I'd say 53 MPG is rather OK for a new 2.2 liter engine.

Besides that, it's not a fair comparison, a 1.6 liter against a 2.2 liter engine. Bigger engine means lower MPG, laws of nature basically .
The focus will be much more economic, but will have have much less power and smoothness and will be much less fun to drive.

[sallycivic22ctdi]

Originally Posted by Steeph

Besides that, it's not a fair comparison, a 1.6 liter against a 2.2 liter engine. Bigger engine means lower MPG, laws of nature basically .
The focus will be much more economic, but will have have much less power and smoothness and will be much less fun to drive.

Yes, you're right. The 1.6 diesel Focus has much less power and is very slow off the mark until the turbo cuts in. In comparison the Civic has incredible punch and amazing bottom end torque. Hopefully the economy will improve when it's run in. I haven't really pushed the car yet so the engine is probably still quite tight.

I do get the feeling though that the Civic is a car tuned for performance rather than economy. I've owned 2.2 diesels in the past (I had a new shape 2.2DTI Vectra - god foresaken unreliable wretch of a car) and that was probably better on fuel than the Civic - but had a lot less power too.