8th Gen Civic - Concerns on fuel economy

Printable View

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

15-09-2007, 08:41 AM
buddah51au

I have just completed a return trip to sydney, a total distance of 3,084km in 7 days. Overall the fuel consumption was very impreesive and my findings tell me the VTEC system works exactly as it is described (to my understanding of it). The bottom line is fuel consumption is very much controlled by the speed drive at. My understanding of the IVTEC system on the R18A engine is that it is most efficient in the 90 to 110 KPH range & i found this to be completely accurate. My findings were this.....eg; with the majority of cruising @ 108KPH on cruise control i returned a figure of 6.28L/100km, however if you increase that to 118 KPH, again on cruise control for extended periods the average fuel consumption increases to 6.55L/100KM. But the real eye opener for me was having the wife drive for a period of time (on P plates), therefore the Cruise control set @ 101KPH, followed by 400kms of night driving on Kangaroo infested roads where i had the cruise control set @ 90kph (I did not want to put a roo through the radiator so if u want to call it grandpa driving i will accept that) I got my best consumption figures for the trip......577km / 33.45L
and that equates to 5.8L/100km. One other thing i would like to mention is that from Maitland to Campbelltown, 2 days of city driving and back to Maitland i averaged 7.19L/100km, exactly as advertised for the VTI. Overall figures for the trip....3,084km / 199.79L = 6.48L/100km...............................
Please note that these figures could never be expected in the Civic sport with the 2.0 liter engine.
15-09-2007, 09:23 AM
buddah51au

Quote:

Originally Posted by denot

hey buddah, Can you explain a bit why?

I will answer this question in the next few days after i do my research again
15-09-2007, 09:25 AM
markCivicVti

Well done buddah!! Fantastic logging! The fact that the auto isn't a 4 gear auto-box must make a big difference with the fuel economy at those higher speeds.
15-09-2007, 12:43 PM
buddah51au

Quote:

Originally Posted by markCivicVti

Well done buddah!! Fantastic logging! The fact that the auto isn't a 4 gear auto-box must make a big difference with the fuel economy at those higher speeds.

Thankyou Mark. In MY OPINION, The 5 speed auto is a major reason in choosing the civic over other vehicles in the same class (before considering build quality, reliability & resale value). The gearing of the transmission helps not only in fuel consumption, but it also leaves me with the opinion that here is a great small car that can comfortably cruise long distances without overworking any of the running gear as all Highway cruising is done between 2000 & 2500 rpm ( yesterday we covered 1396km in 16 1/4 hours...minus 1 1/4 hours for stops....so 15 hours driving time). I will say that i have never been a fan of Auto gearboxes in 4 cylinder vehicles, but here is a great example where they work well together. In saying that, i believe i caught the electronics out on 1 occasion ( for those of you that know the New England Hwy, there is a long downhill run from Willow Tree to Murrurundi. Here the gearbox was continually changing between 3rd & 4th, unsure what gear to hold, and then on flatter sections it would not change into 5th gear. At 1 point i actually thought i had lost top gear all together). I would actually prefer a manual control so that i can dictate the gear i wish to be in, maybe that change will be available in future models. 1 thing i did enjoy was the long uphill climbs on the F3 freeway where it would change back to 3rd gear and hold 5000RPM all the way to the top. Like all honda engines the R18A loves to rev when given the opportunity. The Bottom line is that i would recommend this car with an Auto transmission to anyone, even above the manual gearbox.
Sitting in a traffic jam for 2 hours on Pennant Hills Rd Due to a Bus accident or attempted Hijack - whatever it was .....definately not fun....and worse in a manual.
15-09-2007, 02:04 PM
aswanderers

hey just to share what my FD2 can achieve 538km for 32liter of petrol... did it once .. drive normally just didn't rev above 3.4rpm 40% city 60% highway driving...

but since this records I nv drive such a mileage again, cos I am not playful driver... so on average my mileage is 410 to 440km for 42 liter.... 10km/L
19-09-2007, 07:27 PM
buddah51au

Quote:

Originally Posted by denot

hey buddah, Can you explain a bit why?

Sorry for the delay in responding Denot and i stress that it is my opinion only not to use E10 fuel when i can buy standard 91RON. Individuals must do their own research and form their own opinion.

I suggest anyone contemplating using E10 fuel should first do a web search on ....... "E10 fuel problems".....and read several of the articles listed there.

My other concern is that i personally do not trust fuel companies, we have all heard on accasions about sub standard fuel being distributed. How can we, as concerned consumers be absolutely certain that fuel companies on occasions will not stretch the legal requierments and up the ratio to more than 10% ethenol.....we cant. 91RON fuel has a proven track record over many years, at theis point in time E10 has no track record and there are too many various opinions on wether it is 100% safe and compatable or not. So this little black boy will stick with a known product for as long as possible.

On a side note i have noticed that E10 fuel sells for 2 cents a litre less than 91RON, yet the common belief is fuel consumption will increase between 1 and 3% when using E10. So in actual the cost saving is lost in running costs.
20-09-2007, 09:29 AM
denot

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddah51au

On a side note i have noticed that E10 fuel sells for 2 cents a litre less than 91RON, yet the common belief is fuel consumption will increase between 1 and 3% when using E10. So in actual the cost saving is lost in running costs.

buddah tahnks for this... by only ready the last paragraph is already enough for me to not to try it... I fill my tank twice (on the trip to Central coast and return) and the consumption is CRAP! 30.8L/274.3kms (11.2L/100kms) and before its 30.78L/268.8kms (11.45L/100kms). Remind you that this is mainly Hwy driving... if using normal unleaded for hwy driving: 17.2L/190.6kms (9L/100kms).
20-09-2007, 02:31 PM
fab4272

Quote:

Originally Posted by denot

buddah tahnks for this... by only ready the last paragraph is already enough for me to not to try it... I fill my tank twice (on the trip to Central coast and return) and the consumption is CRAP! 30.8L/274.3kms (11.2L/100kms) and before its 30.78L/268.8kms (11.45L/100kms). Remind you that this is mainly Hwy driving... if using normal unleaded for hwy driving: 17.2L/190.6kms (9L/100kms).

From reading this thread over the last few weeks, its quite obvious that not all civic are 'identical'. i personlaly myself do not see the appox 7ltr/100km as advertised. Its more like 10ltr around town.

Also, my car pings when running 91RON, which I believe has something to do with fuel economy.

AND YES, the owners manual states that 91RON is acceptable so no remarks about being tight and not using 95ROM or higher please, which I do occasionally. Dealer has looked at it 3 times for this issue now. The last time they took snapshots of the ECU when the engine started to ping at different rev's under driving conditions on the road. Just got a reply back today that the ECU timing is normally between 12-18 deg, and the knock sensor is picking up the pining and the data shows its retarting the timing to -12 deg when it happens. Is this right????? The knock sensor is meant to prevent detonation correct? Why is it that I still hear the sound of 'tin cans rattling' still then? To me, the engine is still pinging, regardless of what the knock sensor is doing.... Anyway, their answer is 'oh it must be the fuel quality'. Like I haven't tried a dozen different stations and get the same result. I told the dealer I was going to escalate the issue with Honda Australia....
20-09-2007, 02:41 PM
denot

Quote:

Originally Posted by fab4272

From reading this thread over the last few weeks, its quite obvious that not all civic are 'identical'. i personlaly myself do not see the appox 7ltr/100km as advertised. Its more like 10ltr around town.

Also, my car pings when running 91RON, which I believe has something to do with fuel economy.

AND YES, the owners manual states that 91RON is acceptable so no remarks about being tight and not using 95ROM or higher please, which I do occasionally. Dealer has looked at it 3 times for this issue now. The last time they took snapshots of the ECU when the engine started to ping at different rev's under driving conditions on the road. Just got a reply back today that the ECU timing is normally between 12-18 deg, and the knock sensor is picking up the pining and the data shows its retarting the timing to -12 deg when it happens. Is this right????? The knock sensor is meant to prevent detonation correct? Why is it that I still hear the sound of 'tin cans rattling' still then? To me, the engine is still pinging, regardless of what the knock sensor is doing.... Anyway, their answer is 'oh it must be the fuel quality'. Like I haven't tried a dozen different stations and get the same result. I told the dealer I was going to escalate the issue with Honda Australia....

what type do you drive mate?
20-09-2007, 02:41 PM
fab4272

Quote:

Originally Posted by denot

what type do you drive mate?

the 8th gen (FD???) 2006 Vti, 5spd Auto
20-09-2007, 11:28 PM
markCivicVti

So with the R18a implmentation of i-vtec, is it possible stay in the fuel efficient cam when gently accelerating up from a stand still? Or is that load too high, and hence the R18A will stay in the normal 'hot' cam mode?

According to the diagram off TOV on the R18A implementation of i-vtec it seems like provided you are accelerating below 3.5k rpm it will stay on the efficient cam. I suppose my question is.. would slowly accelerating in the lowerer gears (staying under 3.5k rpm) be classified as a high enough load to stay in the hot cam?
21-09-2007, 06:24 AM
buddah51au

Quote:

Originally Posted by markCivicVti

So with the R18a implmentation of i-vtec, is it possible stay in the fuel efficient cam when gently accelerating up from a stand still? Or is that load too high, and hence the R18A will stay in the normal 'hot' cam mode?

According to the diagram off TOV on the R18A implementation of i-vtec it seems like provided you are accelerating below 3.5k rpm it will stay on the efficient cam. I suppose my question is.. would slowly accelerating in the lowerer gears (staying under 3.5k rpm) be classified as a high enough load to stay in the hot cam?

My understanding of the IVTEC system on the R18a is that the change over point from ecconomy cam to normal cam is 3200RPM. The IVTEC apparently only works under light throttle and light load situations, and the load is determined by the computer. SO yes, light acceleration is the best way to stay on the hot cams and leave the rest up to the computer.

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page