2019 civic has worse fuel economy ratings?

Tags:
  1. ac143

    ac143 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    Posts:
    57
    Thanked:
    10
    Location:
    Markham, ON
    Car(s):
    2017 Civic LX sedan (manual)
    Am I the only one that noticed that fuel economy ratings got worse across the board for 2019?

    For example, my 2017 lx 6mt was rated 8.5l/100km city 6.0l/100km hwy. For 2019 it's 9.3 city and 6.5 hwy.
     
  2. racer

    racer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Posts:
    392
    Thanked:
    215
    Location:
    Virginia
    First Name:
    Dave
    Car(s):
    2018 Civic Si sedan. I drive a manual not because it is easy.. but because it is fun
    May have been revised due to a larger pool of samples?

    For the US, in 2017, they updated " some of the calculations used to estimate fuel economy. The new calculations are based on test data from model year 2011–2016 vehicles. So, they better reflect today's vehicle fleet of more fuel-efficient vehicles and advanced technologies such as hybrids and turbocharged engines."

    Since the 10th gen was new in 2017, perhaps now with 2 years of owner experiences, they've noticed that the car does not get as good of mileage as originally expected. Some of the original EPA ratings may have been based on lab testing, vs actual vehicle testing in actual road conditions.
     
  3. Deezy

    Deezy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2018
    Posts:
    406
    Thanked:
    282
    Location:
    Covington, Ga
    First Name:
    Daniel
    Car(s):
    2018 Civic LX Sedan 6MT (FC2) / 2004 Civic LX sedan
    Your example shows it improved.
     
    bahndrvr and NoHonor937 thanked this.
  4. nags

    nags Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2018
    Posts:
    124
    Thanked:
    82
    Location:
    S. Florida
    Car(s):
    2019 Honda Civic Sport
    My brand new 19 is doing quite well. Around 40mpg on the highway and 35-37 around town.
     
  5. REBELXSi

    REBELXSi Señor Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2018
    Posts:
    773
    Thanked:
    557
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Car(s):
    2018 Honda Civic SI coupe
    It actually doesn't. The new numbers he posted are more fuel over a given distance.
     
    Deezy thanked this.
  6. Deezy

    Deezy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2018
    Posts:
    406
    Thanked:
    282
    Location:
    Covington, Ga
    First Name:
    Daniel
    Car(s):
    2018 Civic LX Sedan 6MT (FC2) / 2004 Civic LX sedan
    You're correct... I was looking at it wrong.
     
    REBELXSi thanked this.
  7. NotSerious

    NotSerious Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Posts:
    179
    Thanked:
    129
    Location:
    GreatWhiteNorthEh
    First Name:
    No
    Car(s):
    2018CivicLXSedanCVT
    #7 NotSerious, Jan 9, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
    Canadian figures are inverted. (Volume/Distance) (ie. Liters/100 km) instead of (Distance/Volume) (ie. miles/gallon)
    The smaller the number the better.
     
    Deezy thanked this.
  8. AndyAndromeda-AUS

    AndyAndromeda-AUS AndyAndromeda

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2017
    Posts:
    399
    Thanked:
    150
    Location:
    BNE - Australia
    First Name:
    Andy
    Car(s):
    Honda Civic 10th Gen - Vti-LX (Australia)
    This is why you should go CVT... Waaaay more fuel efficient! :p
     
    repeet thanked this.
  9. PhilF

    PhilF Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2018
    Posts:
    230
    Thanked:
    190
    Occupation:
    Retired Biomedical Technician, Gunsmith
    Location:
    South Central Pennsylvania
    First Name:
    Phil
    Car(s):
    2019 Civic Touring Coupe Platinum White Pearl 2019 FIT EX-L Navi Modern Steel Metallic
    #9 PhilF, Jan 10, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2019
    Just some models/trims, I traded my 16 EX-L Coupe on a 19 Touring Coupe

    2016 EX Coupe CVT 31/40/35 w/215/50/17 tires, identical to my 2016 EX-L, I averaged 37-40 in general mixed driving, always in the mid 40's highway, got over 50 easily on occasion.

    2019 Touring Coupe CVT 30/37/33 w/235/40/18 tires, mechanically identical, same weight as the EX, only real difference is the much bigger/wider tires. I have been averaging 34-36 in general mixed driving, some limited highway only, indicated 43.5. Given, the car has only 1300 mi, but is lower overall than my 16 was at this point. I believe it is due to the increased drag, friction, adhesion of the larger tires. Can't think of any other reason, hopefully, when it gets warmer and its broken in, things will improve, but it is rated lower by 3 mpg highway. So far have used only Shell 87 which is Toptier.
     
  10. hondatom

    hondatom Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2018
    Posts:
    20
    Thanked:
    4
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON Canada
    First Name:
    Tom
    Car(s):
    2008 Civic, 2010 Mazda5, 2008 Sentra
    I was wondering the same thing!
     
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...