PDA

View Full Version : MY FD ONLY TAKES ME 450km FULL TANK AND ITS BRAND NEW



Pages : [1] 2

warwick108
02-01-2008, 11:32 PM
Hello, I'm new to this forum and Ive recently purchased a new honda civic vti, however when I fuel up my baby it only gives me 450km and thats using bp ultimate or v-power racing. I do not step on my car as its only done around 1000km on the clock. wondering if anyone else gets the same? or is their something wrong with my engine?

markCivicVti
02-01-2008, 11:41 PM
Couple of things:

1) How many litres do you actually put in? Without that number your figure of 450 doesn't mean anything. Work out your ltr/100km ratio. My last one was 8.4ltr/100km. One member here gets around 6ltr/100 - but he does alot of rural back roads.

2) New engines have slightly worse economy than run in engines. Give it time.

But from my eperience that sounds about right in normal city/suburbia driving.

Oh and Hi!

warwick108
02-01-2008, 11:47 PM
Well.. I put in a full tank which is about 50litres i think.. wateva a full tank is.. I an currently getting around 11.1ltr/100km which i think is rediculous.
do u think I would be better off using normal unleaded fuel? maybe it would eat less? thanks

markCivicVti
03-01-2008, 12:10 AM
Well.. I put in a full tank which is about 50litres i think.. wateva a full tank is.. I an currently getting around 11.1ltr/100km which i think is rediculous.
do u think I would be better off using normal unleaded fuel? maybe it would eat less? thanks

Yes 50 ltrs. But your fuel bar will show the orange warning light around 40 ltrs. There's always heaps left before the light goes off. So its very very unlikely that you fill anything past 40 litres. Check the servo docket - you'll be surprised how early the fuel light goes on. Next time find out exactly how far you traveled and make a note of the litres of fuel when you refill (assuming you reset the trip computer and filled the tank to the brim).

No normal unleaded will use the same amount of fuel. So technically you're wasting money on premium stuff - but I do it too as my engine is still new'ish. Around 1.4k or so.

rk 86 wa
03-01-2008, 08:00 AM
using ultimate 98 i get anywhere between 400-510 depending on how i drive (fd1 manual)

aaronng
03-01-2008, 08:13 AM
If you want to calculate fuel consumption, fill your tank to the top, drive around and then note the number of kms you did. Fill back up to the top using the same petrol station and if possible, the same pump. Divide the number of litres filled by the number of kms driven and multiply by 100 to get L/100km.

BTW, stick to 91, 95 or 98 RON. No point using V-power racing. You probably lose a bit of range because of the ethanol.

denot
03-01-2008, 08:17 AM
i used V-Power on my AT Sports, and the fuel consumption is worse than the normal unleaded (12.5L/100Kms if i remember correctly). And my avg fuel consumption is 10.5-11L/100Kms.

Joele
03-01-2008, 08:20 AM
IMO your doing alright, LOL... I have an Auto VTi 2007

I drive City only 90% of the time..

Out of 40L tank (always 10l left in bottom) I get from 380L -> 420L using regular unleaded.. I don't thrash the car at all.. I am up to 6,000km and it hasn't improved yet.. Actually this is by far my biggest disappointment with this car, my 2002 Mazda Astina 323 1.8L did much better and apparently the Civic has 'advanced' fuel saving technology? just not as advanced as the old Mazda 323 1.8L ;-)

On the highway or in the country it does better of course, I just got back from a holiday in regional NSW and I was getting more like 570 per 40L tank..

denot
03-01-2008, 08:25 AM
just rang my uncle with a VTI-L auto, 2000kms and the last time he fill in it was 7.5L/100Kms... and its a 90% city as well since his doing delivery around the city...

Joele
03-01-2008, 08:31 AM
Actually my fuel consumption is probably 6% worse as checking my speedo at two different speed checks on the hume hwy, to actually do 100kph I need to drive at 106kph. So my car would be telling me I am travelling around 6% further than I actually am?

m0nty ITR
03-01-2008, 08:35 AM
It does seem a little high but not out of the ordinary. My GTI has had 2 tanks so far and it's odometer reading is 1,200. I've done about 20kms on the third tank (55 litres) so I'm getting close to 600kms per tank. For a brand new demo that's pretty good because people don't mind having a go in them.

My DC5R would get around 380-420kms from a tank but I only drive it in a spirited fashion and it's a modded K20. What's the ADR claim for the 1.8 in the FD?

m0nty ITR
03-01-2008, 08:36 AM
Great, well trying to prove to Honda there is something wrong with my fuel consumption is going to get me nowhere fast LOL

They won't listen to you until you've done at least 5,000kms anyway. They need a larger timeframe to monitor it. We've had similar instances with VW customers. They expected ADR quoted figures on the first week.

aaronng
03-01-2008, 08:48 AM
The only way to get ADR figures is to not have traffic lights, hills and traffic jams in city driving. ;)

Joele
03-01-2008, 08:50 AM
They won't listen to you until you've done at least 5,000kms anyway. They need a larger timeframe to monitor it. We've had similar instances with VW customers. They expected ADR quoted figures on the first week.

I have done 6,000 now, will bring it up at 10,000km service but who knows where it will get me...

ADR I believe is 7.3 combined for the Auto..

Joele
03-01-2008, 08:52 AM
The only way to get ADR figures is to not have traffic lights, hills and traffic jams in city driving. ;)

Denot said his uncle is beating ADR doing deliveries in the city.. :p

UNLS1
03-01-2008, 08:53 AM
doing short trips also is bad for fuel consumtion!

aaronng
03-01-2008, 08:54 AM
Denot said his uncle is beating ADR doing deliveries in the city.. :p

I would ask how did he calculate the fuel consumption numbers? Unless he did the fill to the top, drive and refill to the top method, I don't trust the numbers.

Joele
03-01-2008, 09:03 AM
I would ask how did he calculate the fuel consumption numbers? Unless he did the fill to the top, drive and refill to the top method, I don't trust the numbers.

Thats the way I do mine, fill to full and drive until the light comes on.. 40L -> 42L consistantly (depends on how quickly I can find a servo when the light comes on LOL)

aaronng
03-01-2008, 09:06 AM
Thats the way I do mine, fill to full and drive until the light comes on.. 40L -> 42L consistantly (depends on how quickly I can find a servo when the light comes on LOL)

What's your exact fuel consumption, say for the last tank that you filled? You gave a rough estimate of filling with 40-42L and driving 380-420km. Eventhough that sounds like a narrow range of numbers, it can give you anything from a best of 9.5L/100km to a worse of 11L/100km. :)

Joele
03-01-2008, 09:27 AM
Last tank is a bad example as that was on holiday in the country, so 90% hwy driving...

hwy one was 7.22
3 city before that were: 9.36, 11.02, 10.94

aaronng
03-01-2008, 09:50 AM
Last tank is a bad example as that was on holiday in the country, so 90% hwy driving...

hwy one was 7.22
3 city before that were: 9.36, 11.02, 10.94

How much throttle do you use when you take off from traffic lights? Your numbers are slightly better than an auto Euro with its bigger engine, but still loses out to the manual Euro. Maybe the R18a engine in the VTi is only fuel efficient at small accelerator positions.

denot
03-01-2008, 10:11 AM
Denot said his uncle is beating ADR doing deliveries in the city.. :p

meh... i dunno, i didnt measure this myself... so hopefully he's not drunk this morning when I rang him... :(

but ask buddah51au he is an ex mechanic and his fuel consumption is amazing... check this thread: http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69019

and here is his consumption before:
549km....37.04 lts......6.75 L/100km
553km....37.62 lts......6.80 L/100km
517km....35.62 lts......6.89 L/100km
496km....34.28 lts......6.51 L/100km
485km....33.33 lts......6.87 L/100km
524km....36.59 lts......6.98 L/100km
444km....29.62 lts......6.67 L/100km
439km....29.30 lts......6.67 L/100km

aaronng
03-01-2008, 10:24 AM
Try driving with very light throttle for 1 tank to see if it improves dramatically. I usually take off slowly and let the old ladies in the 2.2 auto camrys zoom off into the distance.

Frost_FD
03-01-2008, 10:42 AM
Yes new engines takes time to adjust so they consume a little bit more pertol, i was getting 480 km on 40 litres but since i have worn the engine in 35000KM now i get 550 KM. Ever since i installed 19" weighing 100kg+ it does 500KM.

After i installed my CAI it does 530 KM now.

Joele
03-01-2008, 10:47 AM
denot: I can get 7.22 in the country, thats not too hard.. Considering the Honda claimed combined is 7.3L then his rural figures are believable..

Aaronng: I will try and take notice of that on my next tank and post back..

denot
03-01-2008, 11:19 AM
since i have worn the engine in 35000KM now i get 550 KM. Ever since i installed 19" weighing 100kg+ it does 500KM.

After i installed my CAI it does 530 KM now.

hey frost, does this means that if u change the OEM rims back you will get 580kms? :p jkz jkz...

on the topic, mine is constantly doing 10.8 to 11.5L/100kms at the moment a lot of city driving (stop start so many time) and 10-20% hwy (only on every weekend from eastern dist - harbour tunnel - Gore hill Fwy)

aaronng
03-01-2008, 11:36 AM
denot: I can get 7.22 in the country, thats not too hard.. Considering the Honda claimed combined is 7.3L then his rural figures are believable..

Aaronng: I will try and take notice of that on my next tank and post back..

You should be able to get much better than the ADR 7.3L/100km. To compare, the Euro is rated for 9.4L/100km, and I get 10.5L/100km in the city (maybe 10-20% of motorway driving) and 7.0L/100km when doing pure highway at 110km/h.

Bob san
03-01-2008, 11:45 AM
your engine is still new, let it run in first. after 10,000kms the fuel consumption will be better.

Frost_FD
03-01-2008, 12:05 PM
I noticed after 3000km it showed good results

Joele
03-01-2008, 12:18 PM
You should be able to get much better than the ADR 7.3L/100km. To compare, the Euro is rated for 9.4L/100km, and I get 10.5L/100km in the city (maybe 10-20% of motorway driving) and 7.0L/100km when doing pure highway at 110km/h.

Well my 7.22L on the HWY can't be due to my driving style, I drove up to 110Kmh (116kmh on my speedo) and set cruze control. CC was on from outskirts of Melbourne all the way up the Hume past Albury into NSW (at which point you do have to slow done to 50kmh a few times (drives you crazy) for the towns, but I just slow down then once through click Restore..

aaronng
03-01-2008, 12:38 PM
Well my 7.22L on the HWY can't be due to my driving style, I drove up to 110Kmh (116kmh on my speedo) and set cruze control. CC was on from outskirts of Melbourne all the way up the Hume past Albury into NSW (at which point you do have to slow done to 50kmh a few times (drives you crazy) for the towns, but I just slow down then once through click Restore..
Yup, see if it improves after your first 6 month service.

warwick108
04-01-2008, 12:39 AM
Sorry everyone, instead of writing 10000km I wrote 1000km leaving out the extra zero.. lolz.. I'm going to try to do 100km and then fill up..and see how many litres it used.
thanks for that idea.. =)

sam.
05-01-2008, 03:29 PM
yeah our vti seems to chew through a bit of fuel too, but i haven't checked the numbers yet, lol

EK4R
05-01-2008, 04:10 PM
well this could be irrelavant but i recently got a new alignment ( was toe'ing at 17..LOL )

after that i jumped from 350 to 420 in my last tank. and i only fill up 33 litres with quiet a few spirited driving here n there.i hope i am not running lean?! car is modded with internals

aaronng
05-01-2008, 05:55 PM
^^ that reminds me, what tyre pressures are you guys running? I use 34-36psi.

faction
05-01-2008, 06:04 PM
~34/35psi, personally.

clayton4115
07-01-2008, 04:02 PM
just drove down to melbourne and back via the Newell Hwy some sections between towns i was getting 5.50/100 in my civic, average 6.00/l not bad with 2 adults and a full load of clothes etc.

Joele
08-01-2008, 02:49 PM
just drove down to melbourne and back via the Newell Hwy some sections between towns i was getting 5.50/100 in my civic, average 6.00/l not bad with 2 adults and a full load of clothes etc.

How do you know between towns? did the 7th gen not cheap out on a real trip computer???

clayton4115
08-01-2008, 03:09 PM
they have 2 trip computers but i have scangauge

i was getting up to 52MPG in the American standard! damn good result

i travelled to melbourne and the civic consumed 95 litres of fuel on the way down and 98 litres on the way back,

most expensive fill up 1.47/l most cheap $1.31/l.

buddah51au
12-01-2008, 08:21 PM
The 8th generation Civic fitted with the R18A engine can give fantastic fuel economy if it is driven in an economical manner. The bottom line is your right foot controls fuel usage, full stop. As for the fuel gauge, i continually get 355 to 370kms from 1/2 tank, and when all bars disappear u have 6 liters remaining. As for economy i find it pointless just checking 1 tank, it is far better to average it out over several tanks to get an accurate reading. It is important to refill at the same pump every time as the angle of the car can make a difference of a few liters. Using air conditioning will increase fuel consumption by an average of 6%. It is a total waste of money using anything other than standard 91RON unleaded. My personal fuel consumption to date is
36,739kms - 2,502.72 liters - Average Fuel Consumption = 6.85 L/100km. Best recorded is 5.8 - worst recorded is 7.6.

buddah51au
12-01-2008, 08:31 PM
By the way....if anyone wants to see my spreadsheet on fuel ecconomy just pm me with your email add and i will send it, or if u prefer to chat ym id is same as my id here.

philip_pc
16-11-2009, 04:09 PM
best ive gotten is 5.2L/100km (calculated this over 420km)................i was amazed when i got this number as my friend was telling me thats close to hybrid consumption

this is on 08 FD1 Manual with RON98 highway travel @ 90km/hr ........... hahaha

aero
16-11-2009, 07:10 PM
woah.. i thought this thread was dead! lol

Stig
16-11-2009, 07:30 PM
daym, i get on avg 10-10.5L/100km :(

zr6
16-11-2009, 08:03 PM
you must've driven a lot in urban areas (or combined with peak times hwy) with 10-10.5lt for 1.8 engine.

my aurion v6 sportivo 3.5 engine done:
- 12-13lt for combined city and peak times freeway
- 10lt for combined city and off peak times freeway which is exactly what toyota claimed: 9.9lt/100km combined.

buddah51au
16-11-2009, 08:54 PM
when i had my FD1 Auto I averaged 6.78L/100km over 60,000km with a best recorded of 5.8L/100km.
I now have a CU2 Euro & have averaged 7.18L/100km over 20,000km.

It all comes down to how you drive the car. Here is my Trip computer on the CU2.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/buddah51au/IMG_0196.jpg

jcpabc
16-11-2009, 08:56 PM
Should be a auto.

My FD1 manual does around 500KM before 15000KM. Now it does about 530KM a tank.

95331140
17-11-2009, 10:35 PM
Anyone have any results on what a Civic 2.0L sport gets?

Just curious..

moons
18-11-2009, 07:15 PM
Wow.. I sure hope your tank is smaller than an FN2R. In urban conditions I get around 500km on a tank before the warning light hits. And every trip includes at least some VTEC action. Engine has just ticked over 20,000km.

Maybe you had a bad batch of fuel and need to reset your ECU - Actually, I'm not even sure if that applies to FDs (?).

jcroker1
18-11-2009, 09:51 PM
my 06 fd2 auto is lucky to get 450k per tank- city driving, some peak hour, but little vtec!!

Jackee
19-11-2009, 07:07 PM
gahhhhh! i get 300km at no bars =/ occasionally i do get up to 400 though. works out to be 12-13l/100km

FDBenni
19-11-2009, 09:20 PM
you must be vtecing it everywhere u go

curtis265
19-11-2009, 09:49 PM
holy crap 12-13 is like an SUV.

buddah51au
19-11-2009, 10:02 PM
That is almost double what I get out of a CU2 Euro Auto, very heavy right foot can be the only answer.

JOhnnyFD
19-11-2009, 10:17 PM
you must be vtecing it everywhere u go

remember guys, VTEC on the FD1's are different to other honda VTEC's

R18A engine has its VTEC on the 'economy' cams engaging btw 1000-3500rpm.. after that would operate on 'high output' cams that dont have VTEC

FD2's on the otherhand have the K20Z2 engine that operates as any other VTEC engine.. no entirely too sure when VTEC engages but would operate on their high output cams

so as an experiment to all FD1 drivers.. drive btw 1000-3500rpm.. and see how ur fuel consumption goes

buddah51au
19-11-2009, 11:37 PM
remember guys, VTEC on the FD1's are different to other honda VTEC's

R18A engine has its VTEC on the 'economy' cams engaging btw 1000-3500rpm.. after that would operate on 'high output' cams that dont have VTEC

FD2's on the otherhand have the K20Z2 engine that operates as any other VTEC engine.. no entirely too sure when VTEC engages but would operate on their high output cams

so as an experiment to all FD1 drivers.. drive btw 1000-3500rpm.. and see how ur fuel consumption goes

The answer to that is on the previous page.

JOhnnyFD
20-11-2009, 03:19 PM
just explainin VTEC buddah

curtis265
20-11-2009, 03:48 PM
u can hardly notice vtec deactivating.. it's the slightest nudge

buddah51au
20-11-2009, 03:55 PM
I will have to copy this in 2 parts due to it's length. It is an old article I found on Temple of VTEC in 2006 when I got my FD1.


Honda's new R18A Engine
After briefly covering the new K20Z engine for the Asian Domestic Market, we now take a similar look at the new R18A engine that was launched with the new 8G Civic. This R18A engine is a more 'univeral' engine in the sense that it is being used in the new Civic throughout the world and not just Asia alone. There is likely tons of technical information on this new engine in car publications and internet sites all over the world. However as the materials for the R18A in this article are derived from the same technical overview presentation which the K20Z review was based on, this article may hopefully contain new and useful information for the reader who might still be seeking R18A information. As with the K20Z article, a similar comment applies to most of the photos in this artcle, with regards to their (lack of) quality and alignment.
In the technical presentation, Honda calls the R18A their "all new 1.8l i-VTEC". The engine is designed to work in conjunction with the new 5AT gearbox and like the K20Z also features Drive-By-Wire as part of its key technological features.
i-VTEC - "Same but Not The Same"
While there's much 'reputation' to be gained by being first on the block (i.e. being the first to publish a technical overview), doing this article at so late a time (after everyone else has more or less published their 'reference' review on the R18A) did allow me to make an important observation. This is that there seems to be some confusion about the i-VTEC mechanism on the R18A. Many seem to continue to think that i-VTEC on the R18A functions in a similar way to the VTEC mechanism in the original SOHC-VTEC engines like the D15B or D17A. This is not completely accurate and I hope I can correct this with this technical overview series.
The new R18A engine is a 16-valve SOHC design with a new 'i-VTEC' mechanism. This new i-VTEC mechanism is a cause of much confusion amongst even hardcore Honda enthusiasts. Basically when i-VTEC was first launched by Honda, they made a statement that i-VTEC = VTEC + VTC". This however is not true when applied to the R18A. As a SOHC design, it is not a trivial matter to implement an effective VTC mechanism to the R18A, not the traditional VTC which seeks to optimise intake and exhaust cam opening overlap. This is because a SOHC head uses a single camshaft for both intake and exhaust valves so the VTC's mechanism of rotating the camshaft on its axis will not work as it will affect both set of valves. So the important thing to bear in mind is that on the R18A, i-VTEC does not equal VTEC+VTC. There is no VTC and thus no continous variation of intake and exhaust valve opening overlap. The i-VTEC mechanism basically is similar to the SOHC-VTEC mechanism on the D15B and D17A of old. However, this is where the similarity ends. i-VTEC on the R18A does not merge two torque/power curves together. Rather it switches the R18A engine between two entirely different modes, a normal 'power' mode and a fully docile 'economy' mode. Furthermore, when and whether to switch is not determined by simple parameters like engine rpm alone but rather by a combination of parameters, most importantly parameters used by the ECU to decide if it should 'open' VTEC or not. So the 'i' in i-VTEC actually stands for 'intelligent' meaning a new generation of SOHC-VTEC which responds to actual road and running conditions, rather than the traditional one which works more or less mainly on engine rpms alone. VTEC on the R18A does not always engage - if the proper conditions are not reached, the engine might never enage VTEC at all.
This article is not the best place to dwell into intricate details about the new i-VTEC implementation as it's done on the R18A engine. To fully explain the R18A's i-VTEC implementation will take up too much space and detract from the original objective of this article which is a full technical overview of the engine, not just the i-VTEC mechanism alone. Meaning while the R18A spots 'i-VTEC' prominently, i-VTEC is not its sole technological showcase. The whole engine is actually a showcase of state of the art thinking and technology. A planned follow-up technical overview article will do a much better job. In that article, I will be using materials supplied by Honda for this purpose. i-VTEC on the R18A represents a whole new way of thinking and is truly a step forward. However in this article, we shall focus more on the overall technical detials of the new R18A engine.
Design Objectives
Like the case with the K20Z, the Honda R&D engineers clarified their design objectives for the new R18A engine in the technical overview presentation. The R18A is described as an 1.8L i-VTEC '4V SOHC' with a 'new' i-VTEC implementation. These objectives for the R18A are
Responsive Acceleration :
and "Torquey performance thruout the rpm range'
Naturally the baseline for comparison was the 1.7l SOHC-VTEC D17A engine in the outgoing 7G ES-Civic. Recall that this engine delivers a max power of 130ps and a max torque of 15.8 kgm from a 1.7l SOHC design using the traditional 12V/16V VTEC mechanism. The new R18A engine, with an additional 100 c.c. of engine capacity and exploiting new technologies delivers a max power of 103kW or 140ps. This is 7kW or 10ps extra power over the D17A. Max torque is 174Nm or 17.7 kgm which is 19Nm or 1.9kgm more than the D17A. So while the difference in displacement is only 100c.c., relatively the R18A delivers a lot from it.
Similarly with the K20Z, the saying 'a picture speaks a thousand words' applies here with this R18A as well. Honda supplied a similar comparison chart in the presentation, comparing the power and torque curves for the D17A and R18A. However in the PR materials for the R18A i-VTEC, the same chart is available but in a much higher 'publishing' quality. So I used the better chart which is reproduced on the left and like the case with the K20Z clearly shows Honda's objectives and how it has been achieved with the R18A.
Like the case with the K20Z, the focus with the new R18A is 'torque' and its delivery across the rpm range. Looking at the comparison chart on the left, we can see how much more torque and power the R18A delivers over the D17A. In this case, the comparison of the max-torque figure is even misleading as the R18A peaks in torque at a different rpm than the D17A. So the largest increase in torque that the R18A delivers is at its max-torque point and the increase at that point is actually greater than 1.9kgm (around 2.5kgm based on crude visual estimation).
Of greater significance is how the R18A delivers a lot more torque/power than the D17A over the entire rpm range. This starts from the idle rpm and continues on to the redline. Based upon visual estimation, the increase in torque is at least 10Nm. When coupled with the new 5AT gearbox, this translates to greatly improved performance.
This then is what the Honda R&D engineers listed as their achievement for the R18A - (as compared to the D17A) the R18A achieves both power performance and superior fuel economy (more on the fuel economy in the i-VTEC tech overview article later).
Key Acheivements of the R18A engine (Honda's view)
Honda R&D listed 6 key achievements for the new R18A engine. These areas, along with the technologies used to achieve them, are explained in the technical presentation and listed below.
1. Fuel Economy + Power
The R18A delivers a new level of fuel economy but yet more power than the D17A. This is achieved by using the following technologies:
• Via Valve Closure Timing Control (the new i-VTEC mechanism). As explained above, we will be taking a close look at this implementation in a separate article in the near future)
• Reduced (internal) Friction from
• Pistons shot with molybdenum disulfide
• Ion plating on piston rings
• Plateau Honing

buddah51au
20-11-2009, 03:56 PM
Reduced internal friction directly leads to less power loss inside the engine and thus more power (from the combustion of the A/F mixture) delivered to the flywheel.
2. Increased Torque
For improved driveability, Honda has been concentrating on torque on their newer engines. Actually more torque at a specific rpm directly means more power at the same rpm but the common term used by car enthusiasts nowadays in that 'torquey' implies more acceleration (due to more power across the rpm range) while 'powerful' can often mean a 'torqueless' engine with all the power coming in at high rpms. In this case, the objective and achievement of the R18A is more torque throughout the rpm range (as compared to the D17A) or alternately and equally as correct, more power throughout the rpm range (take a look at the power chart above to see what I mean).
Specific technologies used to achieve improved torque are listed as
• a new variable-length intake manifold
• Piston Oil jets (similar to those used in the B-series engines)
Of the two items, the new variable length intake manifold is one of the core components of the R18A that is responsible for its torque/power delivery so we will take a closer look at this.
Variable Length Intake Manifold
While the R18A does not rely on traditional VTEC mechanisms to deliver a broad torque/power band, it instead exploits the principle of intake tract resonance to deliver more or less the same result - that of merging two different though relatively narrow torque curves together to a combined curve that is delivers high torque across a much broader rpm band. This is achieved from the new intake manifold which features two sets of intake runners (from the plenum), effectively a variable length intake manifold.
The principle of variable length intake manifold depends upon the resonance of air inside the intake tract. Intake tract here includes the intake manifold and the air-filter system, i.e. from the air-filter right up to the intake valves. When the intake valves open and close, they create air pulses which flow along the intake tract. These air-pulses or sound waves are responsible for the intake roar (or noise, depending on who makes the engines). The frequency of the sound waves is determined by how fast the intake valves are opening and closing - how fast the engine is spinning or engine RPM. An engine spinning at 3.000rpm will create a sound wave at roughly 50Hz.
All sound waves will have resonance points which depend upon the frequency of the sound (or alternately, its wavelength). These are known as the resonance frequencies. When the wavelength for the resonance frequency coincides with the length of the intake tract, high pressure points will be created at the intake valves, higher than atmospheric pressure. This will help in the filling of the cylinders. More air means more fuel can be injected and this means more power. So all engines will feature a specific peak in torque (or power) which is influenced by this resonance frequency. For many Honda engines with a standard intake manifold (e.g. the B16A), this resonance frequency is usually around 3,000rpm. This is also why when we replace the standard air-filter with an open element system, we can destroy the mid-range torque of the engine if we do not make sure that we place our fancy new air-filter back in the same place as the original air-filter box of the stock intake system. This is because if we place the filter too close to the intake manifold, by using a very short metal pipe for e.g., we will effectively change the length of the intake tract and thus the resonance frequency it supports (a short intake tract will have a higher resonance frequency).
The principle of a variable length intake manifold, usually with dual runners like the one used on the R18A is that they make use of two sets of intake runners. One set is designed to have a resonance at a lower frequency (or engine rpm) while at a higher rpm, a 2nd set of much shorter intake runners will be used. This shorter intake runner will of course feature a resonance frequency which is higher. So the 2 sets of intake runners will deliver more or less two separate torque peak or effectively two slightly different torque/power curves. By using the same technique as with VTEC, by selecting the right point to activate the 2nd set of runners, we will be able to combine the two torque/power curves together to deliver a single curve which delivers torque/power across a much broader rpm.
One limitation is that dual runner intake manifolds do not have the same 'bandwidth' as that delivered via valve timing. Also the actual length of the intake runners are constrained by physical space so the two torque curves won't be spaced too far apart. So there are constraints to how far apart the two torque curves are as well as how 'wide' an rpm range they cover. Thus while in principle we can deliver the same benefits with variable length intake manifolds as with a traditional VTEC mechanism, in practise, we cannot work across the same very wide rpm range as VTEC. This is partially (not totally) why the R18A does not have a very high redline.
3. More compact dimensions
In pursuit of their "Man Max-Machine Min' principle, Honda has been introducing smaller and smaller engines. The new R18A is no exception and features a more compact size than the outgoing D17A, despite delivering an extra 100 c.c. of engine capacity. Honda R&D listed two areas for this achievement:
• narrow cam chain
• chain case with built-in oil pump
4. Quiet Operation
Engine 'noise' at both idle and when operating has been reduced with the R18A which Honda attributes to the use of a new Lower block construction for the engine block.




The new MAF sensors
5. Emissions
Acheiving lower emission levels (ULEV and ZLEV being the target) is the other target Honda has for their new range of engines and to deliver a new level of (low) emissions, Honda has employed the following with the R18A :
• 2-bed catalytic converter located immediately after the mainfold
• "Leading-edge" control systems : DBW and airflow sensors
Similar to the K20Z, the R18A employs MAF (mass air-flow) sensors in the air-filter box as well as the exhaust manifold to supplement the MAP sensor in the throttle body. In the Q&A session, I asked about the rationale in using both types of sensors. Honda R&D says they allow them to meter the air-fuel ratio in the engine a lot more accurately than just using either sensors alone and this is crucial to allowing them to achieve more efficient combustion of the a/f mixture, directly leading to more power, better fuel economy and lower emissions.
6. Reduced Weight
Besides being smaller in physical dimensions, the R18A is also lighter than the D17A which Honda attributes to
1. Aluminium VTEC rocker arms
2. integrated cylinder head and exhaust manifold (meaning they come casted as a single item)
3. Plastic head cover
4. High strength cracked connecting rods. The conrods are now casted as a single piece and then 'cracked' apart at the proper place. This gives a very close contact patch when they are bolted over the crankshaft)
5. plastic intake manifold, a 'trick' borrowed from the L-series engines
Some of the parts above, (such as the aluminium rocker arms) also reduce the weight of the internal working components and help in reducing internal power loss.
Drive-By-Wire
Both the K20Z and this R18A engine feature a new Drive By Wire (DBW) system which Honda says allows them to deliver "Exhilarating (throttle) Response" from the R18A engine. A very enlightening explanation was given when Honda R&D showed in the presentation a comparison of the acceleration versus throttle pedal position for the Civic 1.8S.
Note that the VW Bora is being used as the benchmark. While the 'target' remains the Toyota Altis, Honda is also targeting the 'continental' alternatives with this new Civic, hence the use of the VW Bora when tuning throttle response. Within Asia, it is generally held (whether correctly or not) that the continental marques deliver good 'driving feel' so cars from VW, Peugeot, Audi and so forth have been examined during the R&D of this new Civic.
NVH








NVH is another area which Honda R&D focussed on in the development of the R18A. Specifically they looked the 'High frequency range', i.e. how much 'noise' the R18A delivers in the higher frequencies.
The graph on the left shows their achievement in this area. Honda R&D itemized the following areas as being the main focus during development:
• Intake Sound
• A New "Torque Rod Mount" system
In addition, to reduce intrusion of outside noise into the cabin, Honda also employed sound insulation techniques.
A new 'torque rod mount' system was designed to supplement the standard engine mount system. This system consists of an upper and a lower torque rod added to the engine-gearbox package and helps to reduce vibration and twisting of the engine during application of throttle. The net result is the reduction of 'booming noise' from the engine in the high frequency range.




For sound absorption, this was done through a new "soundproof package" which helped in 'Improved Quietness' via the reduction of outside noise intrusion. These was done using double door seals and a special 'Sound absorbing door hole seal' which is a special hole opened up inside each door which serves to cancel out outside noise through resonance (see diagram).
There is also use of sound absorbing materials for improved sound insulation, specifically in the roof lining and the use of insulating floor carpets.
When Honda launched the new 8G Civic, they made a lot of reference to how much attention was paid to details - to regain back as much of the 'Civic DNA' of old as they can. One of the most important areas in this case was the sound of the engine, or rather how the engine sounds when pushed hard. Honda made lots of reference to how they actually tuned the engine sound when designing this new Civic.
In the area of engine sound, the target was to generate a 'Linear Engine Sound Output'. The D17A's sonic 'signature' was severely lacking (to be frank) in this area. So the new R18A was literally designed to 'make all the right noises at the right place' ! Honda characterized it as 'Sporty Intake Sound Tuning' (to improve the 'sonic quality' of the intake roar) and one of the places they paid a lot of attention to was in the specific tuning in the intake system (air filter system) by the use of 'optimized intake parts'. This comprises 4 main areas, identified in the diagram above on the left and which are :
1. A 'silencing device' for frequency change in the air-filter box
2. optimized Air cleaner SHAPE
3. Optimized duct length - note how the intake duct is twisted
4. A 'silencing device (for) frequency change' put in the middle of the intake duct, specifically for the tuning of the engine sound !
The sonic tuning involves the reduction of engine sound during low-rpm operation and an increase of the "High rpm intake sound", i.e. roar of the intake at high rpms was increased. The overall target was to produce a more linear engine sound during WOT runs. The achievements in this area are identified in the graph on the left.
So the idea is that the engine should be quiet when baby'ed but be suitably 'noisy' when pushed hard - clearly catering to the wishes of Honda enthusiasts ! After years of being told by us (enthusiasts), it looks like Honda R&D finally understood that the sound of an accelerating (Honda) engine is an extremely important and integral part of the Honda driving experience.
The careful attention paid to the engine sound during WOT runs for both the K20Z and R18A are explained by the term 'Linear Engine sound output' and is highlighted in the graph below.



Interior sound level at WOT for Civic 1.8S Engine sound achieved level for front seat middle sound
Like the K20Z, the R18A is now designed to work in conjunction with the new 5AT gearbox as a 'package'. The specific areas of improvement for the new 5AT have already been covered in the K20Z technical review so we will not be going through it again here.
Conclusions
During the launch of the new Civic, it was clear that Honda is quite proud of what they have managed to achieve with the new R18A engine for the new 8G Civic. What should now be clear from this article? Remember that 140ps max power output from a 1.8l engine can rightfully be considered 'very high spec', ignoring the standards set by Honda themselves with the original B18C engines. This can be supported if we compare the R18A output with those from competitors including 'high specification' twin-cam engines of similar size. For e.g. the 1.8l DOHC Twin-Spark engine used in the Alfa Romeos are delivering 140ps as are the 1.8l DOHC EFi engines used in the local (Malaysian made) hot-hatches like the Proton Satria GTi and Proton Putra. This is also comparable to the 1.8l Toyota Altis (138ps) and superior to the 1.8l Nissan Sentra (130ps).
Coupled with potentially exceptional fuel economy (for a 1.8l engine) and specific characteristics targeted to please long time Honda enthusiasts, it is clear how technically advanced the new R18A engine is.
I was truly impressed by how much technology was in the new R18A when I sat through the presentation. Ignore common misconceptions that 'SOHC means low tech while DOHC means high tech'. Owners of the new 8G Civic 1.8S should be proud and reassured that their new 1.8l SOHC i-VTEC engine is truly 'state of the art' !

I hope that explains everything about the FD1

buddah51au
20-11-2009, 04:06 PM
2006 R18A
3-stage VTEC
Examine the SOHC VTEC and SOHC VTEC-E implementations. The clever Honda engineers saw that it is a logical step to merge the two implementations into one. This is in essence the 3-stage VTEC implementation. 3-stage VTEC is implemented on the R18A 1.8 SOHC engine in which the VTEC-E mechanism is combined with the power VTEC mechanism.
Many of us probably has laughed at the poor ignorant layman who said "I want power AND economy from my Honda". We know of course that power and economy are mutually exclusive implementations. Honda decided not to abide by this rule. Now, with 3-stage VTEC, we get BOTH power and economy !.
The diagram below illustrates the 3-stage VTEC implementation. The intake rocker arms have two VTEC pin actuation mechanisms. The VTEC-E actuation assembly is located above the camshaft while the VTEC (power) actuation assembly is the standard wild-cam lobe and rocker assembly.


Below 3500rpm and with gentle accelerator pressure, neither pin gets actuated. The engine operates in 12V mode with very good fuel combustion efficiency. When the right foot gets more urgent and/or above 3500rpm, the upper pin gets actuated. This is the VTEC-E mechanism at work and the engine effectively enters into the '2nd stage'. Now R18A 3-stage works in 16V mode (both intake valves works from the same mild cam-lobe).
Stage 2 operates from around 3500rpm to 5200rpm. When the rpm exceeds 5200rpm, the VTEC mechanism activates the wild cam-lobe pushing the engine into the '3rd stage', the power stage. Now the engine gives us the full benefit of its 140ps potential !
The 3-stage I-VTEC R18A engine is used on the current 8th generation Civic. The 3500rpm cutover from lean-burn to normal 16V operation in fact varies according to load and driver requirements. With gentle driving, lean-burn can operate up to 3500rpm or higher. The essence of 3-stage I-VTEC is power AND economy implemented on a 1.8l SOHC PGM-Fi engine. Many people mistake 3-stage I-VTEC as a "superior" evolution of the power oriented DOHC VTEC implementation, describing DOHC VTEC as "the older 2-stage VTEC" and implying an inferior relationship. This is totally wrong because DOHC VTEC is tuned purely for high specific output and sports/racing requirements. 3-stage I-VTEC is in truth an evolution of SOHC VTEC and VTEC-E, merging the two implementations into one.

buddah51au
20-11-2009, 04:34 PM
Let me also add some personal thoughts. Over the last decade or so Automatic transmissions have improved out of sight & these days it is not uncommon to see an Auto returning better fuel economy than a manual (on the same model car)

As we are talking about an FD1 lets do a simple comparrison. At 100KPH in an Auto the engine is spinning over @ about 1800RPM whereas in the manual it is doing about 2700RPM. Therefore your injectors on the manual are pumping in more fuel at the same road speed, admittedly only a small amount, but it adds up over time. The only disadvantage with the auto in highway cruising is it only has to sniff an incline or slight hill & it will drop back a gear. This can be very annoying to some people, but they fail to realise that there is insufficient torque at that RPM to tackle any sort of incline.

In these days of ridiculous fuel prices I believe it pays substantial dividends to learn to drive economically & there is an art to it that is difficult to learn for some. It is not necessarily a matter of driving slower, but leaning how to do it. A classic case is when my wife drives our CU2 Auto she uses about 3L/100k more than I do, yet I am the faster driver. Go figure that 1.

JOhnnyFD
20-11-2009, 04:37 PM
links here http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/R18A/index.html
http://asia.vtec.net/hardcore/Civic18S/index.html
http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/RiVTEC/index.html

and info on the FD2 http://asia.vtec.net/Reviews/Civic20a/index.html

buddah51au
20-11-2009, 05:40 PM
links here http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/R18A/index.html
http://asia.vtec.net/hardcore/Civic18S/index.html
http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/RiVTEC/index.html

and info on the FD2 http://asia.vtec.net/Reviews/Civic20a/index.html


LMFAO, you had the links, so why did you ask me to explain?

I didn't have the links, just the articles that I had saved.

If anyone wants a copy of my spreadsheet for an FD1 Auto from new to 60K, just pm me your email add.

JOhnnyFD
20-11-2009, 05:46 PM
lol.. wot??.. i didnt ask anything buddah.. i think u must have misinterpreted me.. i was sayin in previous posts.. that i was explainin VTEC in regards to fuel consumption.. not really askin to explain VTEC.. i just summed it up b4

my bad if uve misinterpreted it

buddah51au
20-11-2009, 06:35 PM
no probs mate, I probably misinterpreted as I dont frequent the FD forum much now as i have moved up to a Euro. I thought My FD1 was good on fuel - 6.78 average over 60,000km, but the Euro is more amazing 7.16 over 20,000km

.k.
22-11-2009, 10:10 AM
i just got to 600.1 km and still got 1 bar left + the reserve fuel once all the bars go :) and i used air-con A LOTT

curtis265
23-11-2009, 10:20 PM
You're crazy. Lots of highway driving for you?

buddah51au
23-11-2009, 10:56 PM
600km is good, but i found it to be the norm, 600 was when my low fuel light came on. anything under that was very rare. my best ever was 708km on 44.5 lts. However my best consumption was 577km on 34.4 lts.

curtis265
23-11-2009, 11:43 PM
my usual is abour 550 when the light comes on

.k.
24-11-2009, 01:37 PM
hardly any highway, trips from my house to go out and eat etc max 30min trips on normal roads with lots of air-con.. was mid 30's outside other day zzz so hott

Zimp13
25-11-2009, 12:34 PM
450kms full tank... combine cycle..... just running 1000km

d@vid
13-12-2009, 11:29 AM
On mine, its around 450 to 470km

Zimp13
13-12-2009, 12:22 PM
fd1 fuel consumption is pretty high.....

curtis265
13-12-2009, 12:30 PM
6.9 is very hopeful - in fact, 6.9 would actually mean you get 724km out of 50L (tank)

or 652 km out of 45L

buddah51au
13-12-2009, 08:46 PM
I actually did better than that with my FD1 Auto curtis, consistantly. From what you guys are trying to tell me your FD1's us more fuel than my current model Euro auto, you must have very heavy right feet is all i can say.

curtis265
13-12-2009, 09:56 PM
I reckon i'm just doing a lot of short drives, and a slightly heavy right foot. I think.

howy
13-12-2009, 10:05 PM
I average around 400-450ish.

All city driving and high revs :)

Bennoo
14-12-2009, 12:00 AM
I always get around 600ish, never below 580
2006 vti-l manual.

driving 80ish k's per day.

curtis265
14-12-2009, 12:54 AM
Oh wow 80 k's is a lot.

I'm doing about 20-30....

We should make a poll on this

threesix
14-12-2009, 12:26 PM
my display = 6.3/100k. hybrid,auto,big wheels,air con,blah blah..

buddah51au
14-12-2009, 01:26 PM
my display = 6.3/100k. hybrid,auto,big wheels,air con,blah blah..


got you covered with The FD1 Auto i had as wee as with my current CU2 auto (not hybrid not diesel) Indicated 6.0/100km, but we all know the figure displayed & the true figure are not the same.

Zimp13
14-12-2009, 09:23 PM
the auto should consume more than the manual. i dont have heavy foot. i have tried my best not to rev the car and drive as smooth as possible. 3 to 4 refills still around 450 - 470 kms......

moons
14-12-2009, 10:14 PM
How big is a FD1 tank?

JOhnnyFD
14-12-2009, 10:32 PM
50Litres

buddah51au
15-12-2009, 06:36 AM
the auto should consume more than the manual. i dont have heavy foot. i have tried my best not to rev the car and drive as smooth as possible. 3 to 4 refills still around 450 - 470 kms......

Modern automatic transmissions can be more economical than a manual of the same model. generally they run a much lower final drive ratio which works in there favour.

threesix
15-12-2009, 07:26 AM
mines dropped to 5.2/100k...

**** a normal auto. 1 consant gear FTW! lol

moons
15-12-2009, 01:36 PM
Something must be wrong as my FN2R using BP 98 for city driving with plenty of VTEC - I get a minimum of about 440+km with 460 - 480 being the average. Oddly, my trip computer lists my consumption as 9.x most of the time though.

And the FN2R has the same tank size it would seem.

??

buddah51au
15-12-2009, 04:41 PM
I consistently got 600+km between refils with my FD1 auto & managed to get well beyond 700km on a few occasions.

threesix
16-12-2009, 10:08 AM
ive gotta do a FULL tank test to see how many k's i get.....

i never fill the car up all the way casue the rear wheels scrap. haha (stig knows this! lol)

Muzzy
16-12-2009, 01:53 PM
ive gotta do a FULL tank test to see how many k's i get.....

i never fill the car up all the way casue the rear wheels scrap. haha (stig knows this! lol)

lol that's lame.
Dunno how you would put up with it. You'd have to fill up more often.

threesix
16-12-2009, 01:56 PM
fashion never fuction baby. **** it.

Jackee
17-12-2009, 06:34 PM
im getting liek 300km per tank..with aircon..can i get it retuned or something? do they do this at servicing? ta

curtis265
17-12-2009, 09:42 PM
duude try dumping all the dead bodies in trunk, filling the tank properly, and driving slower.

fitme
19-12-2009, 01:34 PM
managed to pull 9.6/100 A/T with 1,400 odo-reading, mostly city driving..

buddah51au
23-12-2009, 06:25 PM
you guys get worse fuel consumption with your Civics than I do with my current model Euro Automatic

grifty
23-12-2009, 06:31 PM
you guys get worse fuel consumption with your Civics than I do with my current model Euro Automatic

lol pretty ironic ay

i used to get like 550-600 (40L tank) kms out of my old AE92 rolla which was carby and had a leaking fuel pump....

buddah51au
23-12-2009, 11:10 PM
I keep a spread sheet on fuel consumption & servicing on my cars:-

2006 FD1 Auto - 59848kms - 4059.03 lts - average = 6.78L/100, best recorded was 5.8

2008 Euro Auto - 25058kms - 1773.24 lts - average = 7.08L/100, best recorded so far is 6.03

spread sheets are available to anyone.

To prove my point here are some pictures i took on a recent trip in my 08 Euro. Bear in mind the Euro is a much bigger, heavier car, tank capacity is 65 Litres in comparison with the FD1/2 which has a capacity of 50 litres. So an extra 15 litres, yet it has a range of over 1000km on the highway.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/buddah51au/SydTrip09.jpg

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/buddah51au/SydTrip092.jpg

bigbaby0223
30-12-2009, 10:06 AM
lol...450KM out of a 50L tank and you are still complaining? I was lucky to get 400KM out of a 50L when I had my Evo and it was brand new too.

curtis265
30-12-2009, 10:09 AM
^yeh but we r talking about NA, no-performance civics here, and a factory spec of 6.9L/100km - that only one person can get :S

bigbaby0223
30-12-2009, 10:14 AM
^yeh but we r talking about NA, no-performance civics here, and a factory spec of 6.9L/100km - that only one person can get :S

Never listen to what the manufacturer claims, I rekon they must have done the fuel consumption test on a down hill in neutral. Mistubishi claims a fuel consumption of 11L/100KM for a Evo 9, yet I dont think anyone on the planet has got even close to that figure.

kawai
30-12-2009, 10:45 AM
dude isnt the post from march?

but anyway my question is, its it still doing 450km on the 50L of petrol after the initial 6 months?

is your car the auto or manual ? (cus manual consumes less fuel compared to auto)

and if your car is manual how do you normally drive? do you push your car often (5-6k rev)? but anyway if you get time to go on a road trip via a free way see how far your car takes you on a full tank :D

but yeah im quite sure the Honda people test their cars in circuits and with the Honda fuels, lubes, oils and tires :D so cant say they are completely lying to you about the fuel consumptions of their cars.

btw I'm a bit of a FOTB sorry for any typos and if any thing which don't make sense.

buddah51au
02-01-2010, 03:08 PM
Never listen to what the manufacturer claims, I rekon they must have done the fuel consumption test on a down hill in neutral. Mistubishi claims a fuel consumption of 11L/100KM for a Evo 9, yet I dont think anyone on the planet has got even close to that figure.

i proved that statement wrong in my above post

FD1 Quotes 7.2, I averaged 6.78 over 2 1/2 years.

CU2 Euro Quotes 8.9, I have an average so far of 7.08 after 25,000km.

tOniies
02-01-2010, 03:29 PM
My DC2R last time i recorded was about 480-490km before filling up. And the petrol indicator light was flashing crazy. So I guess that seems reasonable. But i remember when my parents first got there car, the car drank petrol like an asian with a slab of VB.

curtis265
02-01-2010, 03:52 PM
lolololol asian with a slab of VB

Jackee
08-02-2010, 08:33 PM
my cars done 10,000 km's and there will be no bars when my car has done 350kms, refilling at station shows 42km. City driving and aircon on the odd occasion ( not very frequent ); could there be something wron gwith my O2 sensor? do honda check this for me for free? its 09 civic vti , city driving, generally have to fill up every single week

Zimp13
08-02-2010, 10:59 PM
my cars done 10,000 km's and there will be no bars when my car has done 350kms, refilling at station shows 42km. City driving and aircon on the odd occasion ( not very frequent ); could there be something wron gwith my O2 sensor? do honda check this for me for free? its 09 civic vti , city driving, generally have to fill up every single week

well if city driving all the time thats abt rite i guess....
i got average 450km city and highway......

seriously fd1 drinks a bit.... how many here only manage to get 450km for one full tank???? all of us heavy foot??? perhaps should ask honda to check the car out....

moons
08-02-2010, 11:06 PM
Bah.. trade it in and buy a CTR.. better fuel economy and more fun. :)

fitme
09-02-2010, 07:58 AM
hmm my one does 450km before the fuel lights on..mixed highway/city....its only 4 months old FD1...never pass 3krpm..

zimmy83
09-02-2010, 09:10 AM
hmmz...my 06 sport does around there...but for ur 1.8 i was expecting more actually...

threesix
09-02-2010, 09:50 AM
mine is getting 5.7 to 6.2/100ks depending on what fuel i use.

95ron seems to be the best... hmmm.

FDBenni
09-02-2010, 09:57 AM
hmm my one does 450km before the fuel lights on..mixed highway/city....its only 4 months old FD1...never pass 3krpm..

that doesn't seem too off, similiar to what I get revving it here and there. remember when the light goes on theres still plenty of fuel left. when theres only 1/2 blocks theres still actually about 10 litres of fuel left.

fitme
09-02-2010, 10:03 AM
^ when the fuel lights on..it has 10ltrs left

so lets say im getting 9kms/ltr..so aprox 540kms on a full tank

curtis265
09-02-2010, 10:06 AM
threesix, you're getting that from a hybrid...?!

Xplodin
09-02-2010, 10:31 AM
I keep a spread sheet on fuel consumption & servicing on my cars:-

2006 FD1 Auto - 59848kms - 4059.03 lts - average = 6.78L/100, best recorded was 5.8

2008 Euro Auto - 25058kms - 1773.24 lts - average = 7.08L/100, best recorded so far is 6.03

spread sheets are available to anyone.

To prove my point here are some pictures i took on a recent trip in my 08 Euro. Bear in mind the Euro is a much bigger, heavier car, tank capacity is 65 Litres in comparison with the FD1/2 which has a capacity of 50 litres. So an extra 15 litres, yet it has a range of over 1000km on the highway.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/buddah51au/SydTrip09.jpg

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/buddah51au/SydTrip092.jpg
Man u must drive like a granny...

I have a CL9 manual and it still drinks.. The lowest i ever got was 7.6l/100... and that was pussy footing it.

threesix
09-02-2010, 10:40 AM
threesix, you're getting that from a hybrid...?!

yeah man. guess the big wheels have something to do with it.

im sure the IMA is saving me petrol though.:thumbsup:

buddah51au
11-02-2010, 08:59 PM
Man u must drive like a granny...

I have a CL9 manual and it still drinks.. The lowest i ever got was 7.6l/100... and that was pussy footing it.

Those figures were achieved on a recent 1400km trip to sydney, Cruise control set 5 kph above posted speed limit. I wouldn't consider that Granny driving, nor would i consider it hard driving. Also Remember the trip computer IS NOT 100% accurate. I actually filled up to the neck after 989km, 61.63 lts, so the true figure was 6.23.

Personally I never judge economy by 1 tank, I prefer to average out over several thousand km as this gives a true indication. As of my last refill I had traveled 26,735kms & used 1894.07 lts. This equates to an overall average of 7.084L/100km since I have owned the car.

I have detailed spread sheets for the 2 1/2 yrs I owned an FD1 Auto & for the 14 months I have had the CU2.

Jackee
13-02-2010, 02:06 PM
whats the best petrol for a fd1? I read around and guides said theres a recomended octane level, and we should just stick to it?

buddah51au
13-02-2010, 02:16 PM
whats the best petrol for a fd1? I read around and guides said theres a recomended octane level, and we should just stick to it?


I only ever used standard 91 unleaded in mine. I did try 95 for a few tanks & it made no difference to economy. The extra 10 cents a litre is a total waste of money on an FD1 so just stick with 91. STEER CLEAR OF ETHONAL FUEL.

Muzzy
15-02-2010, 09:03 AM
yeah likewise I only use standard unleaded on my FD2. Agreed that the extra 10c or more a litre is a waste. Only ever tried ethanol once (10% one from Shell). It went fine but I'm reluctant to use Ethanol fuel on a regular basis.

Zimp13
15-02-2010, 12:06 PM
i thought with the 98 ron compared to 91 ron, u get better response from the 98 ron.... not just the slight extra milaege.....

threesix
15-02-2010, 12:10 PM
^^ thats what i was thinking...

its like eating healthy compaired to eating maccas 24/7 lol

(maccas ftw)

FDBenni
15-02-2010, 12:15 PM
if it was tuned for 91 ron you would see little difference when using 98. I'd say use 95 ron at most, I've just started using 95 ron because i noticed the motor pings a little bit.

Zimp13
15-02-2010, 12:19 PM
if it was tuned for 91 ron you would see little difference when using 98. I'd say use 95 ron at most, I've just started using 95 ron because i noticed the motor pings a little bit.

then thats easy.... if u gonna use 98 ron all the time, u can advance the timing a bit to gain more power........

jjeetthh
15-02-2010, 03:03 PM
yeah likewise I only use standard unleaded on my FD2. Agreed that the extra 10c or more a litre is a waste. Only ever tried ethanol once (10% one from Shell). It went fine but I'm reluctant to use Ethanol fuel on a regular basis.

How come the salesperson in Honda is telling me that it's better to use ethanol? I just got my MY10 last week, I was supposed to refuel using ethanol but I was in a hurry to look for Shell station so I decided to just pump 95 RON.

What's with ethanol? Can somebody please clarify? THanks

buddah51au
15-02-2010, 05:52 PM
There is nothing wrong with using ethonal fuel as the engine is designed to run on it. Just do your search on ethonal fuels. As a general rule you will loose about 10% of power & fuel consumption will increase by around 10%. Therefore it is uneconomical to use it as it will cost you more $$$$$ to travel the same distance.

It is the same with using premium fuel. If my memory serves me correctly I would get an extra 10 to 20km per tank on an FD1 Auto, therefore it is not worth the extra 10 cents per litre.

threesix
16-02-2010, 08:35 AM
yeah but using 95 or 98ron petrol will be better for your engine in the long run???

Zimp13
16-02-2010, 09:28 AM
if u put 95 ron, might as well add another 4c for the 98 ron... really not much difference in the dollar value already....

Zimp13
16-02-2010, 09:29 AM
anyway, fuel consumption for fd sux.....

buddah51au
16-02-2010, 12:02 PM
yeah but using 95 or 98ron petrol will be better for your engine in the long run???

Could you please clarify as to how 95 or 98 RON fuel will be better for the engine?

As previously posted I tried 4 or 5 tanks of 95 RON while I had my FD! auto and it made no noticeable difference to either performance or economy. Averaging 6.78L/100km over the 2 1/2 years I had the car with a best recorded of 5.8 tells me it is more than suited to using standard 91RON. It would be hard to find a more economical car.

threesix
16-02-2010, 12:17 PM
why the **** would i put '???' at the end of the sentence if i knew. jesus.

95331140
16-02-2010, 01:10 PM
Maybe it could be better for keeping the injectors cleaner for the long-term..

buddah51au
17-02-2010, 10:45 AM
[QUOTE=95331140;2655875]Maybe it could be better for keeping the injectors cleaner for the long-term..[/QUOTE

I don't believe it would make a lot of difference to the injectors. That being said all injectors will eventually need cleaning & new "O" rings fitted, usually after well over 100,000km. I believe a lot will depend on driving style as well - a car that has been babied will carbon up the injectors sooner than an engine that is given a good workout from time to time.

kawai
22-02-2010, 03:37 PM
i really dont know y u guys are getting 95 when its like 5c more to get 98 octant fuel. (some how i seem to have always though vpower was 99 octant)

anyway the vpower and ultimate cleans your engine :D isnt that 5c(X 40L :D) well spent.

ganj3
22-02-2010, 08:23 PM
i really dont know y u guys are getting 95 when its like 5c more to get 98 octant fuel. (some how i seem to have always though vpower was 99 octant)

anyway the vpower and ultimate cleans your engine :D isnt that 5c(X 40L :D) well spent.

I totally agree

jjeetthh
22-02-2010, 08:27 PM
I totally agree

hmmm.. good idea.. i might go for it as well.. is there a particular "brand"??

or is there something in particular? i just had been to a petrol station twice. i forgot the first one (lol) and quix last tue..

sorry if it's a stupid question.. just a newbie..

buddah51au
22-02-2010, 08:28 PM
I am afraid I can't see the point of running either 95 or 98 on a car designed to run on 91, unless of course you have money to burn which is in fact what you would be doing.

jjeetthh
22-02-2010, 08:31 PM
:eek:
I am afraid I can't see the point of running either 95 or 98 on a car designed to run on 91, unless of course you have money to burn which is in fact what you would be doing.

hmmm.. i'm really torn about what's a better thing to do now :) lol

ganj3
22-02-2010, 08:46 PM
Just try them and see which one you like better

VTI-L
22-02-2010, 08:53 PM
Guys, I think were really need to use the KIS method - Keep it simple....I have run a company commodore on 91, and accidently 98 one day, and I couldn't not tell the difference in running/km on the engine...fact is 91 is a better quality than the Yanks get, as there regular fuel starts at 89.....and the fact that 95% of cars all round australia run on 91, with no probs everyday!

When I pick mine car up, she'll be running on normal unleaded, not less there is a proven cost benefit for me to upgrade to 95/98, and to date, there is absoutly no evidents which proves the latter....

Save the extra cents per litre for next fill up! :)

Cheers Steve

blasdf
22-02-2010, 09:30 PM
I put this in another thread about petrol ages back.

I'm not sure about the other brands, but my old man ran a major project for BP with Ultimate Petrol before it came into circulation in NZ around 2004 and was used to for test results based on fuel production, and was being used for BP HQ in London, and has what used to push for Ultimate 102 in England.

The tests did prove bp ultimate 98 to be considerably better for your car than 91 or 95.

to recap on the other post. they took 3 new cars from a range of dealers, corolla, maxima, ss commodore, base model wrx, 3 series bmw etc. they would fill up each car and label them, car 91, car 95, car 98 to do with octane. they even did some motor bikes as well.

each car had 2 designated drivers a day that would perform a 300km circa loop around a part of the north island in NZ. 2 loops a day.

this was done to each car for around 2 weeks or so.
each car had a gps system hooked up, odometers verified and only ran on a certain type of petrol for the 10000 or so km's

as well as this they went to the car market and found a bunch of used cars and they did some work to the engines to run i think half the cyclinders on 91, and half on 98.

that may not be right as i'm not a mechanic minded person, but they were able to split the same engine into 2 fuel fed compartments.

they measured the carbon build up in all car engines with a barometer before the engines were split up, and had some verified car specialist brought out from UK that was involved in respected car projects, expert in field that can verify findings.

after 2 weeks doing these loops, they checked all the engines. every 91 and 95 car had carbon build up, the 98 cars had very little. the used cars actually dropped carbon build up on the 98 section of the car, and the 91 section had gone up.

remember all these cars ran the same loop together so the weather conditions driving conditions, driver behaviour was all calculated similarly and all new cars, same production lines, even same colours.

after 2 weeks they also took the cars to a race track in the north island called manfield, and did a bunch of professional laps by a local track guru and 0-100 times.

in all cases the 98 cars were faster, some considerably, some by only a slight amount say i dunno, wrx 6.1seconds on 98, 6.2seconds on 91. but, one in particular was a v6 maxima at the time. on 91 gas it say ran 8.7 0-100, on 98 it ran 7.6.

since then i always ran my cars on 98. i even had an old h22a bb4 prelude that had over 220k on the clock, nearly all the vtecs out there in NZ had issues over 180k, i had my car from 120k, always ran ultimate, always ran it hard. the engine was awesome, no issues what so ever.

so i think if you put the cleaner gas in your car one off you probably won't see much difference, probably nothing. but if you run it all the time you will have benefits and for the small price difference, $4 a fill or whatever, your car is getting better treatment.

kawai
09-03-2010, 09:55 PM
just got my 2010 vti last week and filled it full last wed to the top. its done 500kms now and still have 4 bars left. running V-power. i think i can manage to get 600kms out of it :D.

buddah51au
10-03-2010, 06:39 AM
just got my 2010 vti last week and filled it full last wed to the top. its done 500kms now and still have 4 bars left. running V-power. i think i can manage to get 600kms out of it :D.

U have in excess of 100km left once your low fuel light comes on, & it won't be on with 4 bars left.

kawai
10-03-2010, 09:49 AM
:D its on now with 2 bars @550


today i ran it down even more later in the day and was scared it was going to run out of fuel, so drove it to about 574km (should still be able to do abou 70km until end of the tank) and ended filling it 44L. so ruffly 7.6L/100km for my first full tank, this was for peak hour and highway driving for 1 week.

FDPete
10-03-2010, 10:02 AM
My 2cents..

07 FD2 Sport auto, never really bothered to record the fuel consumption before however on my last tank (91 ULP) I got 9.1 L/100Klm and that was full city driving, and I mean bumper to bumper peak hour Melbourne traffic where about 10% of the tank would have been freeway driving.

Quite impressed with that as I didn't really try and drive that economically..I try to fill her up with BP Ultimate every 3-4 tanks.

One of my key concerns when choosing the Civic (I was keen in a Mark V Golf GTI DSG) was the fact that it took regular unleaded and running costs compared to the VW were quite low.. Have a friend who purchased a GTI a few weeks after I got the Sport (and yeh its quicker but so what) but the list of problems he has had is ridiculous..DSG megatronic unit needs replacing, air con faulty, drivers door would not shut properly, stuck sunroof and that's in the first 6 months of ownership..

I'm coming up to the 30k service and have had nothing but joy from the Civic I'm loving it. My first Honda and definitely not my last. So much more value that the Euro equivalents and better build quality (yes even the Thai built ones!)

Sorry, I have rambled on in the fuel economy thread

threesix
17-03-2010, 01:51 PM
i filled my tank almost all the way up of 95ron and got 670k's out of it. city driving. well canberra city driving lol

kawai
20-03-2010, 10:26 PM
threesix please do a L/100km and see what you are getting and look at the fuel consumption that Honda is stating. BTW i think every one know in the forum you drive a hybrid :D. with nice wheels and comfy seats ;)

buddah51au
21-03-2010, 10:48 AM
If you look at the price premium (around 13K compared to the VTI Auto) you have to pay to get the Hybrid it will take around 10 years to recoup the difference in fuel savings. That's providing you don't need to replace the Nickel Metal Hydride Battery or have any repairs to the electric motor.

If you look at the advertised economy of the Hybrid it would have saved me around 2L/100km over the 70,000km I had my FD1 Auto, so at $1.30 per liter it would have saved me around $1820.00 over that period. While I personally have nothing against the Hybrid I can't see how the price premium can be justified, just my thoughts.

threesix
22-03-2010, 08:04 AM
i never intended to by a hybrid. never.

i loved the shape of the FD and thought it might look dope with some 17's.

got a good deal on the car i bought. one onwner, hella low k's.

saw someone on here selling some SSR's in 18's and thought.. yup.

after having the car for a while now im so happy i bought it. as i dont care about going fast anymore. been there done that. plus im old :)

so dumping it and putting heavy wheels on i get 6l/100k.mostly better than people with stock FD's.

curtis265
23-03-2010, 11:14 PM
^Crap for a hybrid, but oh well.

When will honda make a diesel?

buddah51au
24-03-2010, 06:15 AM
^Crap for a hybrid, but oh well.

When will honda make a diesel?

I really couldn't fault my FD1 Auto in the 2 1/2 years I owned it, not 1 problem or warranty claim in 70,000km. As a cheap Vehicle by todays standards I don't believe there is anything that can match it for value. It was only after a female decided that it was parked in the wrong place & modified the shape of it that I decided to update to a Euro ( it took a lot to convince the Mrs to do this).

I regard it as the best move I made as the base model Euro is in a different class all round in comparison to the Civic, add to that, the difference in economy is less than 1/2L/100km after 27,000km (7.08L/100km Euro - 6.78L/100km FD1) so I have lost very little in running expenses.

For those who buy new cars the base model Euro is around the same price as an FD2 & cheaper than a Hybrid by a fair margin & you get a lot more car for your money. Once again, just my opinion

For those who buy second hand cars it is a different story. I would also like to add that i think I had a bit to do in helping Denot decide to update from his FD2 into a Euro & he now shares my thoughts.

threesix
24-03-2010, 08:03 AM
^Crap for a hybrid, but oh well.

When will honda make a diesel?

factory fuel claims arent true to most cars are they?? :thumbdwn:

how many k's do you get from your car? you got any current pics of your beast??

black8thgen
24-03-2010, 08:19 AM
im averaging around 11L/100km atm... fml LOL

threesix
24-03-2010, 09:15 AM
you must be redlining your face off! lol

threesix
24-03-2010, 09:17 AM
[QUOTE=buddah51au;2698844]I really couldn't fault my FD1 Auto in the 2 1/2 years I owned it, not 1 problem or warranty claim in 70,000km. As a cheap Vehicle by todays standards I don't believe there is anything that can match it for value. It was only after a female decided that it was parked in the wrong place & modified the shape of it that I decided to update to a Euro ( it took a lot to convince the Mrs to do this).

I regard it as the best move I made as the base model Euro is in a different class all round in comparison to the Civic, add to that, the difference in economy is less than 1/2L/100km after 27,000km (7.08L/100km Euro - 6.78L/100km FD1) so I have lost very little in running expenses.

QUOTE]

was your FD1 stock? stock rims?

FDPete
24-03-2010, 09:46 AM
I really couldn't fault my FD1 Auto in the 2 1/2 years I owned it, not 1 problem or warranty claim in 70,000km. As a cheap Vehicle by todays standards I don't believe there is anything that can match it for value. It was only after a female decided that it was parked in the wrong place & modified the shape of it that I decided to update to a Euro ( it took a lot to convince the Mrs to do this).

I regard it as the best move I made as the base model Euro is in a different class all round in comparison to the Civic, add to that, the difference in economy is less than 1/2L/100km after 27,000km (7.08L/100km Euro - 6.78L/100km FD1) so I have lost very little in running expenses.

For those who buy new cars the base model Euro is around the same price as an FD2 & cheaper than a Hybrid by a fair margin & you get a lot more car for your money. Once again, just my opinion

For those who buy second hand cars it is a different story. I would also like to add that i think I had a bit to do in helping Denot decide to update from his FD2 into a Euro & he now shares my thoughts.

Buddah, how the heck to you average 7.08 L/100KM in yoru euro? What type of driving do you do?

threesix
24-03-2010, 09:49 AM
i think his girlfriend is behind the car pushing.

FDPete
24-03-2010, 09:53 AM
that is amazing economy its got me stumped! unless its all freeway

buddah51au
24-03-2010, 10:31 AM
[QUOTE=buddah51au;2698844]I really couldn't fault my FD1 Auto in the 2 1/2 years I owned it, not 1 problem or warranty claim in 70,000km. As a cheap Vehicle by todays standards I don't believe there is anything that can match it for value. It was only after a female decided that it was parked in the wrong place & modified the shape of it that I decided to update to a Euro ( it took a lot to convince the Mrs to do this).

I regard it as the best move I made as the base model Euro is in a different class all round in comparison to the Civic, add to that, the difference in economy is less than 1/2L/100km after 27,000km (7.08L/100km Euro - 6.78L/100km FD1) so I have lost very little in running expenses.

QUOTE]

was your FD1 stock? stock rims?

I fitted factory 16" alloys to it, other than that it was standard. my best recorded consumption was 5.8L/100, my worst was 7.9L/100. FD1 Auto. I still have the spreadsheet on all fuel used.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/buddah51au/Civic/Picture001.jpg

FDPete
24-03-2010, 10:44 AM
surely those spotties cut your aerodynamic efficiency therefore you would have recorded better figures without!

buddah51au
24-03-2010, 10:46 AM
Buddah, how the heck to you average 7.08 L/100KM in yoru euro? What type of driving do you do?

All my driving is country, mostly rural B class roads - no freeway driving & obviously some driving in country towns. When i go to town which until recently was daily, it is 25km each way + about 7km of town driving. I would do that trip twice a day, 5 days a week. I recently took the Euro to Sydney & back, a round trip of 3075km & averaged 6.45L/100km for the trip. Here is a picture i took of the trip computer on that trip.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/buddah51au/SydTrip09.jpg

FDPete
24-03-2010, 10:51 AM
ahh that makes sense now...you could get away with a V8!

buddah51au
24-03-2010, 10:56 AM
why would I want a V8, I can't think of a decent 1 under 100k that i would buy

threesix
09-06-2010, 09:50 AM
just got 705k's out of one tank with 2 bars showing. light just came on.

after the light comes on how long berfore your fuel fully runs out??

FDBenni
09-06-2010, 11:13 AM
ive driven a further 100km with the light on, but too scared to test the limits lol
im guessing it has 10litres left or so

xenonkuraz
09-06-2010, 11:55 AM
After I ran out of the last two bars and still drove on for a further 50km+ there was STILL 7 liters left in the tank. This was on my NSW>VIC drive. Scary as hell.

My fuel consumption city driving is 600km/50L on V-Power

buddah51au
09-06-2010, 05:34 PM
FD1 Auto, 718kms 44.2 litres

tinymoon
09-06-2010, 09:43 PM
Herre is an article on carsguide.com.au : http://www.carsguide.com.au/site/tools-and-advice/hints-and-tips/what_type_of_petrol_is_best_for_my_car
talking about which type of RON to use.

I am currently using RON 91 as indicated in the fuel cap which is designed for my Honda Civic Auto FD1 MY09. I have tried using RON 95 and RON 98 as well, noticed not much different in term of fuel consumption or performance.

For fuel consumption in term of L/100km, i almost of the time drive in city (gold coast) only with the fuel consumption of 8.4L/100km to 8.8L/100km.

threesix
10-06-2010, 09:02 AM
FD1 Auto, 718kms 44.2 litres

highway k's though right?

fitme
10-06-2010, 10:13 AM
600kms+/50L is achievable if you drive mostly 90% highway

ks_b
10-06-2010, 03:03 PM
wondering if anything wrong with my FD1... i am getting 10-11 lt/ 100km...

xenonkuraz
10-06-2010, 03:41 PM
Sounds normal

Nairda
11-06-2010, 10:35 AM
wondering if anything wrong with my FD1... i am getting 10-11 lt/ 100km...

Its normal if you're driving in lots of stop start traffic. If you always go out in peak hour traffic most of the time ur doing 0km/hr while your car is still consuming fuel...
I have changed different driving styles in order to find out the most eco drive...but it only works with a manual/tiptronic

1) Accelerate slowly - careful on the gas...the more slowly you step on the pedal reduces the chance of you injecting big globs of fuel into your engine which doesn't get burnt.
2) If you see a red light or people stopping ahead immediately gear down and let your car stop by engine braking (people tell me it wears out the gear box but i dont believe it does unless u crunch your gears). Doing this should tell the ECU to stop sending fuel to the engine to "choke" it so you can brake and wont accelerate while its slowing down. I strategically keep gearing down from 4th-2nd until i come to a stop.
3) Minimize the time you stay stationary and minimise braking...so if someone in front of you that you can see is driving like a moron or too slow overtake early.
4) wind up your windows if you dont have window visors as it affects fuel consumption...about 0.5L/100km at least..
5) where possible do not use heater/AC, saps at least 1L/100km

Unproven theory
6) Try to take the route that favours the left hand turns (slip lanes) because it means chances are you wont have to stop at traffic lights. If for example you are travelling to a destination there are 2 methods to get there (that are roughly equal distance) use the route that favours left hand turns to get there and to get back (you should be going opposite routes).

In my ED3 by driving as such i can achieve an average of around 7.8L/100km in a 1.5L carby which is good considering its a carby...In my mums V5 Volkswagen Bora i lowered the average consumption from about 11-13L/100km to around 9L/100km. The FD1 should be able to achieve 6.9L/100km normal driving conditions, i reckon with my driving style you should be able to get 6.5L/100. The trick is to minimise the amount of stop/starts you do and also ignition starts....both are usually where most fuel is consumed...

Then again it could be because your engine hasnt "warmed up" yet...and if you work "in da shiddy" theres not that much you can do =)

threesix
11-06-2010, 10:41 AM
thats one thing i love about my hybrid. engine totally shuts off in stop start driving or when you come to a stop at the light. god bless IMA. lol

fitme
11-06-2010, 01:48 PM
wondering if anything wrong with my FD1... i am getting 10-11 lt/ 100km...

its normal...im getting the same.

curtis265
12-06-2010, 05:22 PM
Good tips nairda, especially the one about suddenly accelerating.

and you guys getting 10-11 makes me feel better about my 8.4. lol.

what engine is that from anyway?

Nairda
24-06-2010, 12:05 PM
hey guys, havent been here in awhile due to exams...just remembered...

What fuel are you using? in my past experience i found that shell unleaded 95 normal consumes on average 1L/100km less than Caltex/shell...so i always pump with Shell cause it gives me more mileage...

Caltex average = 9-9.8L/100
Shell unleaded 95 = 8-9L/100

threesix
24-06-2010, 01:31 PM
i found shell to be better too.

tinymoon
24-06-2010, 01:44 PM
I am doing the research on fuel consumption on my car (Honda Civic FD1 2009) with different fuel type by tracking all my expenses on fuel:

Temporary:
RON 91: Full tank: 400 to 450 km (Gold Coast - Brisbane 2ways - All city drving in Gold Coast)
From 9- 10L/100 km

BP Ultimate: 450 - 500 (Gold Coast - Brisbane 2ways - City drving in Gold Coast)
From 8 to 9L/100km

At the momnet i assume that the BP ultimate give me better miles per tank. I easily to achive 6 to 7L/100km on M1 with cruise control on

threesix
24-06-2010, 02:12 PM
i just put a full tank of v-power and am about to do a long distance drive. im keen to see how many k's i can get out of it.

its funny now that im older i dont care about going fast anymore at all. i get excited about fuel consumption. **** im boring. lol

xenonkuraz
24-06-2010, 02:33 PM
Man same with me. It's all about the fuel meter now

Nairda
24-06-2010, 03:14 PM
i just put a full tank of v-power and am about to do a long distance drive. im keen to see how many k's i can get out of it.

its funny now that im older i dont care about going fast anymore at all. i get excited about fuel consumption. **** im boring. lol

Im with you on that...when you drive a car with no power (ie. me) its all about the fuel gauge...i should be getting new car in a couple of weeks, i got my eye keen on this 24,000km white FD2

threesix
24-06-2010, 03:19 PM
i WISH my car was white :(

xenonkuraz
26-06-2010, 12:14 PM
i WISH my car was white :(

I WISH I bought a white one to begin with :(

Brian FD2R
01-07-2010, 08:33 PM
In my JDMFD2R i got 656km last week on shell V power, needed to find out when it would run out of fuel as it seemed to go on for ever with 1 bar left on fuel guage i now know when it runs out and goes no further!!!!!

xenonkuraz
01-07-2010, 09:18 PM
Even with no bars left the car still has around 7litres.

I seem to get more mileage with E10 compared to V-Power 98

NightRyder
01-07-2010, 09:23 PM
In my JDMFD2R i got 656km last week on shell V power, needed to find out when it would run out of fuel as it seemed to go on for ever with 1 bar left on fuel guage i now know when it runs out and goes no further!!!!!

Talk about taking it to the extreme!...fuel wise that is...

How did you manage to measure it so accurately?...did you have a canister of fuel by your side before it cut out? :)

Alvinlight
01-07-2010, 11:22 PM
today i pump 98, seem ok...

threesix
02-07-2010, 08:49 AM
95 ron seems to run best for me. better than 98.

havent tried E10. to scared to.

Nairda
03-07-2010, 12:22 AM
Even with no bars left the car still has around 7litres.

I seem to get more mileage with E10 compared to V-Power 98

could be psychological. chemical physics doesnt work that way...or you may have had a bad batch of V-Power

xenonkuraz
06-07-2010, 06:24 AM
could be psychological. chemical physics doesnt work that way...or you may have had a bad batch of V-Power

No actually it's just fact. My CD5 is always able to get more mileage with E10. Same driving style.

Vpower just gives the car more grunt with normal 9-10L/100km

tinymoon
07-07-2010, 03:11 AM
Uhm, i personally always get BP ultimate since i tried 1 month ago from Ron 91

ido09s
12-07-2010, 12:46 PM
1) Accelerate slowly - careful on the gas...the more slowly you step on the pedal reduces the chance of you injecting big globs of fuel into your engine which doesn't get burnt.
4) wind up your windows if you dont have window visors as it affects fuel consumption...about 0.5L/100km at least..
5) where possible do not use heater/AC, saps at least 1L/100km

Your kidding arent you.... who told you all this stuff

If your engine is 'injecting big globs of fuel into your engine which doesn't get burnt' then you need to get it checked by Honda as your engine should be burning all the fuel regardless of throttle position.
Winding down your windows does nothing unless you plan on travelling at extreme speeds. I dont believe everything i hear but i dare say thet Myth Busters would be pretty correct with their findings.
The heater will not use any more fuel even if you have it turned to full hot. All the heater does is circulate water through the heater core and the air from the fan is directed through this core to heat the air.
A/C on the other hand is a different matter as it needs the A/C compressor to cool the air entering the interior

As for fuel economy....
I have a manual FD1 that i religiously run on Caltex E10 and i have no problems getting between 550 and 600klms per 42 litres around town including peak hour traffic

I dont know just how much extra power people are expecting to gain by running 98 octane but lets remember here guys its a naturally aspirated 1.8 litre engine. The gains to be had by using 98 octane may be at most 5kw's and you will never feel the difference with such a low power gain.

kawai
15-07-2010, 03:28 PM
is caltex E10 any good , been using bp mostly ever since i got my eg.. then been turning to shell v-power now cus of fuel prices and its hard to find anywhere which gives out bp fuel discounts.

Maybe ill give it ago since i have lots of safeway fuel discounts. :D and see if its the same as the other 2

ido09s
16-07-2010, 12:29 PM
Well i have no problem with it and get good fuel economy from it. I never have problems with performance, actually the car drives very very well given its only a single cam 1.8 :D

curtis265
17-07-2010, 02:02 AM
fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu just got 9L/100km. Filled when it was cheap, didn't finish the tank. did 364 km over 15 days, and used 32.9L...

Badly broken in engine and short drives ftl

xenonkuraz
17-07-2010, 11:07 AM
With E10 I got 360km with 32L. I think that's pretty good considering I was punching it to work every morning, vtec every corner lol...

Edit: lol curtis I just read your post. Pretty much the same...

curtis265
17-07-2010, 02:24 PM
lol can u actually feel vtec in the FD2?

i drove liek grandpa and got shitty fuel consumption... I find that if i drive reasonably aggressively, shifting at maybe3-3.5k, it makes no difference in the end in terms of fuel usage... :(

threesix
17-07-2010, 03:06 PM
im getting 5.1/100ks atm FTW. one tank last me so long. and it looks shit hot parked next to a prius.

but god damm its gutless. the brakes are ****ED too. rear drums FML.

still happy with it.

curtis265
17-07-2010, 03:59 PM
time to get a bbk

migoreng
17-07-2010, 04:29 PM
fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu just got 9L/100km. Filled when it was cheap, didn't finish the tank. did 364 km over 15 days, and used 32.9L...

Badly broken in engine and short drives ftl

:|

my prelude does 9L also and it has over 200k km...

threesix
17-07-2010, 05:59 PM
bbk???

curtis265
17-07-2010, 06:04 PM
i think my engine's just badly broken in, and i only get short drives. mowells.

Bigbrake kit :D
it'll be similar weight or lighter than stock...

JAASMac
18-07-2010, 12:25 AM
Hey all,

Bought the Vti brand new a month ago, now has 2000'ks on it. Has the 5 spd auto in it. Best we've got fuel wise so far is 580'ks on 42 litres of premium fuel. Very happy with that. 600'ks no problem as long as your not too far from a servo.....There were no bars left on the gauge and the light came on at about the 490 to 500 k mark. Thats just normal driving. Not even trying to save on fuel. Want to see what its like on E10 next.

Reclus
20-07-2010, 07:08 AM
I'd say it really depends on whether you'll have to stop and start a lot
that wastes a lot of fuel




i drove liek grandpa and got shitty fuel consumption... I find that if i drive reasonably aggressively, shifting at maybe3-3.5k, it makes no difference in the end in terms of fuel usage... :(

i agree, that's what i've experienced too

stanz86
20-08-2010, 12:11 AM
Wow it seems like u guys have amazing records. I recently just tested out over my last tank, 290 Kms with 2 bars left on the gauge. This is on Shell Unleaded95. So presuming it has used a total of 45 litres, that would mean 15L/100Kms. Dammit, must be city peak hour traffic everyday and probably revving too much :(
Just filled up a full tank of Shell Vpower today, so far 10km done and - 2 bars already, not feeling good lol.
So since there are 2 posts on petrol i shall just post my question here.

Over the past year of owning my car i have always been filling up with Shell Unleaded 95 and nothing else. Read this thread and am now running V-power so as to clear the unwanted stuff in the engine.
So my Qns are :
1) Would my engine have suffered in any case due to not having premium petrol clean it over the past year?
2) Since the overall conclusion was that BP seems to have better L/KM, if my car is left with say, 2 bars of Shell Petrol, would mixing it with BP petrol cause any negative effects?

Hopefully you guys could help me out here, cheers :)

tinymoon
22-08-2010, 01:52 AM
To be honest, i think this is all about psychological effects in human between using BP Ultimate and other RON 98. I have noticed that i would have done at least 550km/tank with BP but for other RON 98 i done max is 510km/tank, refuel when one bar left. The best so far, i have achieve is 640km/tank most highway driving.

Civic FD1 Auto Spark Earth installed.

curtis265
22-08-2010, 12:16 PM
holy crap you are a madman, Try taking it for a service or something :O

maybe your engine is badly broken in, and you cruise on the highways in 2nd gear...

but 15L/100 is more than my mate's 4.0L V6 Prado... and a 180sx etc...

maybe more than a V8

JAASMac
23-08-2010, 10:19 PM
Hey all,

Well have run a couple of e10 tank fulls now and we're still making it to 600k's. There is no noticable difference in performance either. This is a combination of stop/start traffic and freeway driving and no deliberate economy driving. Very happy so far. Car has about 5000k's on the clock.

Cheers.

crazy.ivan
23-09-2010, 11:52 AM
I have a stock EK1 and I get 10L/100km when I drive like a hoon it in city traffic (which is most of the time :P), and about 7L/100km when I drive sensibly. My record was 5L/100kms (highway driving). I had to go 400kms on 20L lol... I just made it...

On the topic of fuel quality, I have always been a believer of buying premium. I have always been told your engine will last longer if you do and I have seen evidence of people getting more km's out of higher octane fuel (they were bigger cars though, not sure if smaller cars would be different). When I can afford it, I will always try to put premium in my car.

And on the topic of e10, DON'T USE IT! lol. They know that it reduces the life of your engine, especially in older cars that weren't designed for fuel with ethanol in it. I mean, its up to you if you think the saving is worth it, or if your car is new and can handle it (still debatable), but personally I never let it near my 1997 car.

xenonkuraz
23-09-2010, 06:00 PM
I use e10 90% of the time. I get consistent high mileage and no engine troubles to speak of

crazy.ivan
23-09-2010, 06:21 PM
I use e10 90% of the time. I get consistent high mileage and no engine troubles to speak of

Its more of a long term issue. Is it an old car or a new one?

JAASMac
23-09-2010, 08:08 PM
Well, inside of the petrol flap it says Ethonal (E10) suitable. So if Honda recommend it I'll use it. They have to warrant the repairs if it all goes bang....:cool:

crazy.ivan
23-09-2010, 08:18 PM
Yeh, new cars have been designed to handle it so your all good :D

xenonkuraz
23-09-2010, 09:39 PM
hrmm yeah my fd2 says e10 suitable as well. but on my cd5 i've been using e10 since it came out. the engine has been running strong and no ill symptoms yet :)

black8thgen
03-10-2010, 12:33 PM
i was just thinking, if premium fuel is more saturated with fuel and what not, wouldnt it burn faster? therefore giving u less mileage in the short term at least?

curtis265
03-10-2010, 03:52 PM
nah ur ECU will know and inject less fuel in

black8thgen
03-10-2010, 07:15 PM
hmm.. cos i got more mileage out of 91 fuel than 98 =.=

xenonkuraz
03-10-2010, 09:22 PM
I get more mileage out of E10 than 98

black8thgen
03-10-2010, 10:54 PM
thats fukd ==.

curtis265
04-10-2010, 12:47 AM
You're probably just inconsistent - try and average over 5000k's and then compare again - one fill often isn't enough to determine how good a fuel is, yet that's what everyone does.

also try reseting your ECU from time to time.

xenonkuraz
04-10-2010, 09:17 AM
Used vpower for first 25000km. E10 for the next 20000. E10 better for milesge

crazy.ivan
05-10-2010, 07:14 PM
i was just thinking, if premium fuel is more saturated with fuel and what not, wouldnt it burn faster? therefore giving u less mileage in the short term at least?

No, because your engine manages the input of fuel based on the throttle. The fuel only burns once its in the cylinders so how fast it burns wouldn't have any effect on usage. And if its more combustible, it should need less fuel per revolution to achieve the same speed, meaning by your logic it would use less (not sure it does though).

Capt Armen
15-10-2010, 11:56 AM
Hey,

I have heard of this problem before as a friend of family bought a auto version vti and could only get about 370-400km on one tank. This improved progressively after he had done about 7000+ km and he manages to get around 550km now which is really good considering his is a auto as well. I believe stick to the ultimate aswell. I have heard people say that the caltex vortex is really good aswell especially for hondas.

Hope this helps.

Capt Armen

warwick108
15-10-2010, 01:20 PM
i started this thread around 2 years ago.. when I picked up the civic, since then ive only been using v-power or bp ultimate, however im still averaging the same milage around 10l/100km.. which i think is very very poor.. i dont thrash my car at all and i dont really do any short distance driving or city driving.. =S

xenonkuraz
15-10-2010, 03:57 PM
then it has to be your driving style

chichichibo
25-11-2010, 01:28 AM
You're probably just inconsistent - try and average over 5000k's and then compare again - one fill often isn't enough to determine how good a fuel is, yet that's what everyone does.

also try reseting your ECU from time to time.

Reset the ECU? How?
My FD2 runs like 190km with half tank of the BP ultimate fuel,
So I would expect the total mileage to be less than 400km for 40L, that's like 9.5Km/L....and which is 10.5L/100km, is it normal for a FD2 (sport)?
Is there any product that can be added to the engine for a better fuel consumption (I heard a fd saying there is sth to be poured into the engine....)?
My FD2 done 63k now....auto......I live in northbridge and work in the city, and sometimes (2/week) bk to Curtin, and sometimes go places like Carousel.
Thanks

chichichibo
25-11-2010, 01:28 AM
You're probably just inconsistent - try and average over 5000k's and then compare again - one fill often isn't enough to determine how good a fuel is, yet that's what everyone does.

also try reseting your ECU from time to time.

Reset the ECU? How?
My FD2 runs like 190km with half tank of the BP ultimate fuel,
So I would expect the total mileage to be less than 400km for 40L, that's like 9.5Km/L....and which is 10.5L/100km, is it normal for a FD2 (sport)?
Is there any product that can be added to the engine for a better fuel consumption (I heard a fd saying there is sth to be poured into the engine....)?
My FD2 done 63k now....auto......I live in northbridge and work in the city, and sometimes (2/week) bk to Curtin, and sometimes go places like Carousel.
Thanks

aero
25-11-2010, 03:39 AM
just disconnect ur battery n leave it for a few mins and then reconnect it to reset ur ecu.

when i first got my civic (auto) it would only give me about 400-450kms before the fuel light came on. 3 years later and on premium 98, fuel light now comes on at about 550kms with about 9ltrs left in the tank.

curtis265
25-11-2010, 07:31 PM
Aero is right. Dc the negative terminal of the battery for a few

obtw guys, if it makes you feel any better, my gifriends car got 6.5 L/100km, driving in almost start stop traffic daily...

R18a fail

chichichibo
26-11-2010, 11:38 PM
so, if my FD2 (sport) runs only about 350km with 40L 98 fuel, is it normal? or sth goes wrong?
i feel like that's quite too much......... (@.@)'

curtis265
27-11-2010, 12:02 PM
yes that is too much. drive calmly for a few tanks and tell us what your average is

chichichibo
27-11-2010, 02:03 PM
yes that is too much. drive calmly for a few tanks and tell us what your average is

ok, i will try my 2nd tank.....and will have the data available later :)
but, i was driving gently on my 1st tank, the rpm is up to 3k MAX for the whole trip, but i was driving in the city.....anyway, Curtis, may i ask wht how far can ur car go normal?

curtis265
27-11-2010, 02:18 PM
i ended up usually getting around 7-8L/100km from the FD1 - they seemed to alternate according to my spreadsheet. this was probably due to me not filling it properly and stopping at the first click.

Check www.redbook.com.au to see what you should be achieving.

Reclus
02-12-2010, 08:27 AM
umm mine's around 9.2L/100KM city drive, everyday from and to work
and I have been using BP ultimate ever since I bought my car
Did one trip to canberra and now the average is 8.5L
still much higher than all of you guys do...

I rarely go over 3k rpm..

curtis does it mean that we should keep it pumping after the first click??

Willo
07-12-2010, 10:27 AM
I'm still getting a consistent 6.63 ltrs/100klm.

Filled up this morning 40.79 litres and drove 615K's. Use normal 91RON fuel and drive to and from work everyday. Manual VTi limited edition and mix of sedate and fast off the lights. 75% sedate...

It seems I got a freak! :)

threesix
08-12-2010, 08:25 AM
^^ what mods (if any) have you done to the car?

Willo
08-12-2010, 03:25 PM
I have done nothing to the car. Stock standard 6 months old with 8500klms

curtis265
08-12-2010, 11:07 PM
I generally fill up as many clicks as i can before fuel starts regurgitating itself out of the tank.

Going to get a good run this time, just lost 1 dot below half and i'm on 360km for this tank :D

are u going on long straight runs or soething willo?

Willo
09-12-2010, 08:47 AM
I generally fill up as many clicks as i can before fuel starts regurgitating itself out of the tank.

Going to get a good run this time, just lost 1 dot below half and i'm on 360km for this tank :D

are u going on long straight runs or soething willo?

No mate :)

Just normal driving to and from work. From the burbs to CBD. So there is an element of stop and start there.

Fill up to second click, usually 40.xx litres.

:thumbsup:

curtis265
09-12-2010, 11:48 AM
farrrk you're a freak of nature.

Good job!

Reclus
09-12-2010, 03:40 PM
i should start doing 2nd click then

buddah51au
09-12-2010, 08:14 PM
I have posted here before on how good my FD1 Auto was on fuel economy. over the 2 1/2 years i owned the car I traveled 59,848 kms & used 4059.03 litres which is an overall average of 6.78L/100. The best recorded was 5.8L/100. 95% of the fuel used was Caltex 91 RON. I always fill to the neck & as much as possible fill up at the same tank each time. I could achieve 700km+ from 1 tank.

For those of you that think those figures are impressive, for the last 2 years I have owned a current model Euro Auto, to date I have traveled 33396km & used 2365.73 litres for an overall average of 7.08L/100. I can easily achieve 1,000km + from a 65 ltr Tank. Once again I always fill to the neck.
Best recorded so far is 6.23L/100. 99% caltex Vortex 95.

Willo
10-12-2010, 08:15 AM
I have posted here before on how good my FD1 Auto was on fuel economy. over the 2 1/2 years i owned the car I traveled 59,848 kms & used 4059.03 litres which is an overall average of 6.78L/100. The best recorded was 5.8L/100. 95% of the fuel used was Caltex 91 RON. I always fill to the neck & as much as possible fill up at the same tank each time. I could achieve 700km+ from 1 tank.

For those of you that think those figures are impressive, for the last 2 years I have owned a current model Euro Auto, to date I have traveled 33396km & used 2365.73 litres for an overall average of 7.08L/100. I can easily achieve 1,000km + from a 65 ltr Tank. Once again I always fill to the neck.
Best recorded so far is 6.23L/100. 99% caltex Vortex 95.

From my experience, I have been told that filling up the tank that high is bad for the charcoal canister? Guys at the driving school section of my work told me, don't know how accurate it is. But I never fill it too high.

They also told me smooth is safe! So even though sometimes I give it some, it's always smooth but fast.... :thumbsup:

buddah51au
10-12-2010, 07:38 PM
If you don't fill to exactly the same spot each time, using the same petrol bowser, it is impossible to to take accurate fuel consumption readings. I have never had a problem with the charcoal canister.

Willo
10-12-2010, 07:47 PM
If you don't fill to exactly the same spot each time, using the same petrol bowser, it is impossible to to take accurate fuel consumption readings. I have never had a problem with the charcoal canister.

How do you figure, that. It's the litres used vs kilometers traveled. Second click, first click is really only millilitres. Not enough to trow it out that much

buddah51au
10-12-2010, 09:14 PM
it can vary considerably depending on the angle of the car, how fast your filling, each pump is different. to measure economy accurately, near enough is not good enough. that is why I keep spreadsheets of all fuel used & i know my figures are 100% accurate & taken over thousands of kms, not just 1 tank full.

threesix
11-12-2010, 04:58 PM
^^ yours is all highway k's though and you drive like a great great great grandmother.

buddah51au
11-12-2010, 05:06 PM
^^ yours is all highway k's though and you drive like a great great great grandmother.

As I have told you before, 75% of my driving is Rural "B" class roads, there isn't a decent hwy within 400km of where I live. The other 25% is country town driving. I drive at whatever the posted speed limit is + 5kph using cruise control. I wouldn't call that grandma driving, Rather smart driving with no unwanted letters from hidden cameras.

Add to that, I was unaware you have seen the way I drive nor do I believe you know where I live.

Willo
11-12-2010, 05:57 PM
I like your dedication to detail. I've been keeping tabs of this since new, so not just a tank of fuel. But do I keep spreadsheets, nope it's over the top for me. :)