Honda loses Small Claims Civic Fuel Economy suit

[merrylander]

… we no longer only get "Not Quite Gas" during the winter months, we get it all year ‘round."

That's another thing that I have suspected. Modern cars, with the fuel pumps in the gas tanks, supposedly can't get vapor lock, but my previous car, with the pump in the tank, on hot summer days, not infrequently stalled and had to be towed. Symptoms consistent with vapor lock, as an M.D. might say. Caused by fuel which evaporates too easily, I believe.

That car, a 1990 Geo Prizm, originally got 30-35 mpg. When they started oxygenating the gas, sometimes with MTBE, sometimes with ethanol, the mileage went down. In later years, it got mileage in the high twenties. That was probably in part because I was driving more locally, but not entirely.

Corn likker is for drinking, I had a 1989 Ford Probe and after they put it in the gas the MPG went to hell. Replaced it with a 2000 Chev Impala LS 3.8l V6. I used to fill up every Friday morning, imagine my surprise when the Imapala used no more gas then the Probe's 2.2l four.

Over the last year I have had to replace gas lines in my lawn tractor, leaf blower and string trimmer and my chain saw is not behaving all that well.

 

[PioneerGuy85]

The answer always fits when you make the scenario match it.

Think like that if you must.

We're all gonna die someday and driving north of about 40mph will never be safe - that is, until we're all driving tanks, or the cars drive themselves.

Personally, I'll pass on either of those.

 

[slow_jazz]

Every car I've ever owned has never gotten the mileage the sticker said it should.

 

[mhardy6647]

We generally get slightly better than the EPA sticker (1 to 2 mpg on average) based on the last few cars we bought new.

 

[Sharpstik]

Get yourself a Honda Civic. The gas type. Can't beat it.

A 160 mile round trip to Atlantic City in my mom's 09' Civic recently on mostly scenic highway roads yielded nearly 40 mpg. I looked at the Hybrid Civic a few years ago, the cost was nearly 9 thousand more and the mileage stated maybe 10 mpg more. Not worth the hassle.

 

[jerrymrc]

Corn likker is for drinking, I had a 1989 Ford Probe and after they put it in the gas the MPG went to hell. Replaced it with a 2000 Chev Impala LS 3.8l V6. I used to fill up every Friday morning, imagine my surprise when the Imapala used no more gas then the Probe's 2.2l four.

Over the last year I have had to replace gas lines in my lawn tractor, leaf blower and string trimmer and my chain saw is not behaving all that well.

Here ya go my friend. http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=MD :thmbsp:

 

[DaveElton]

In our age of space-saving "spare tires", the usage of plastics and composites, etc, which cars of today are heavier than their older counterparts?? :scratch2::scratch2::scratch2::scratch2::scratch2::scratch2:

 

[whoaru99]

...

We're all gonna die someday and driving north of about 40mph will never be safe - that is, until we're all driving tanks, or the cars drive themselves.

Personally, I'll pass on either of those.

Amaxophobia?

 

[PioneerGuy85]

No phobia. Driving, for me, is an interest, an activity I greatly enjoy. If I wanted to just go along for the ride, I'd be calling a cab/taking the bus. I don't do that.

If/when self-driving cars appear on the scene, it'll be only a matter of time before they're forced on all of us by law, like all other 'breakthrough' car technologies this side of about 1970 have.

 

[atmasphere]

I have a 2007 Civic Hybrid. It is indeed capable of 50+ miles/gallon. There are some restrictions. It has to be over 50 degrees. You can't go over 65.

I reset the trip mileage and started from our location here at Atma-Sphere. I had to go to Fridley, MN to talk to a vendor. There are some grades but no outright hills in between. The destination is about 20 -25 miles distant. I took I-94W to Hiway 280N, then I-35N to I-694W then north on 47. The return was the same route. I took my time accelerating, but once up to speed I used the cruise control, which was set to 65 mph. Out and return- by the time I got back the average trip mileage was showing 51.2 mpg.

Normally in summer months with my driving its more like 41-42. It will get that despite me doing 75mph a lot. In the winter I am averaging more like 37-38.

That woman better hope Honda does not find this...

 

[Goodwill_HiFi]

Diesel is SO great every time some diesel VW is in front of me, I feel like someone has cut off my air supply.

You must be very sensitive. Diesel cars don't bother me at all. Some trucks do, but the cars I can barely smell if I notice at all. Sometimes I only hear the diesel cars.

 

[Goodwill_HiFi]

In our age of space-saving "spare tires", the usage of plastics and composites, etc, which cars of today are heavier than their older counterparts?? :scratch2::scratch2::scratch2::scratch2::scratch2::scratch2:

Power this and power that, air bags everywhere.

 

[mhardy6647]

Power this and power that, air bags everywhere.

yup - that plus enhancements to the cabin and "crumple zones" to improve crashworthiness. Today's cars are considerably heavier - comparing apples to apples - than those of 20 to 25 years ago.

 

[Andyman]

Here ya go my friend. http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=MD :thmbsp:

I just checked Michigan and interestingly enough many of the listed locations are marinas. Actually here in Michigan, a law was passed allowing retailers to NOT have to post signage indicating that their gas contains ethanol. Apparently, folks were leaving stations with ethanol postings on the pumps and searching out those that didn't have such signage. Heck, I was one of them.

I'm fond of telling how ethanol did nothing for my mileage. I got 20 mpg on gas and 18 mpg on the 90/10 ethanol blend, so it was basically like only the gas was burning...

 

[whoaru99]

It all burns, but ethanol has less BTU per gallon.

Gasoline is ~114,000 BTU per gallon, pure ethanol about 76,000 BTU per gallon. If you do the ratio of these in a 90/10 mix you end up with the relative BTU per gallon. It will be less than gasoline, but the added oxygenation of ethanol supposedly offsets that a bit, but it's still less. I saw somewhere that ethanol blend had a gasoline equivalency of 98%, but I couldn't find the detail of what ratio it was.

 

[Andyman]

I saw somewhere that ethanol blend had a gasoline equivalency of 98%, but I couldn't find the detail of what ratio it was.

Apparently, my vehicles didn't get that memo...

 

[whoaru99]

Yeah, there are so many variables in comparing gas mileage it's almost like talking about whether or not any particular audio tweak works.

 

[Goodwill_HiFi]

yup - that plus enhancements to the cabin and "crumple zones" to improve crashworthiness. Today's cars are considerably heavier - comparing apples to apples - than those of 20 to 25 years ago.

I'm pretty sure vehicles have had crumple zones, to an extent, for a good many years. I don't really see how that would make a car heavier, either. It's simply designing to control where the car bends in a crash.

I'd trade all the electronic and excess safety crap for a better built vehicle any day. I'd rather have a vehicle that can take a hit, than tin foil lined with air bags. In today's freak-out society, it's my opinion that much of the "safety" is more marketing driven that actual safety driven. Plus everyone wants everything electronic and power.

Our vehicles are being eaten at both ends. We need better mpg's, so they lighten everything they can, but then add all kinds of crap to make them more appealing and "safe", so all the weight plus some gets added back in. We end up with vehicles that are very flimsy in areas that get deemed non-critical, so they're practically disposable if they end up in a crash. Everyone excuses it because, "the vehicle did it's job and the person survived"....... scuse me, I'd like the vehicle to still be worth fixing after the person survives hitting the squirrel!

 

[hbrocks]

I'd trade all the electronic and excess safety crap for a better built vehicle any day. I'd rather have a vehicle that can take a hit, than tin foil lined with air bags. In today's freak-out society, it's my opinion that much of the "safety" is more marketing driven that actual safety driven. Plus everyone wants everything electronic and power.
!

Simple......Go buy a stripped down 1950's sedan.
The crumple-zones are engineered to take the HIT so you don't. Cars are replaceable....body-parts, life-time aches/pains aren't.

 

[mhardy6647]

I'm pretty sure vehicles have had crumple zones, to an extent, for a good many years. I don't really see how that would make a car heavier, either. It's simply designing to control where the car bends in a crash.

I'd trade all the electronic and excess safety crap for a better built vehicle any day. I'd rather have a vehicle that can take a hit, than tin foil lined with air bags. In today's freak-out society, it's my opinion that much of the "safety" is more marketing driven that actual safety driven. Plus everyone wants everything electronic and power.

Our vehicles are being eaten at both ends. We need better mpg's, so they lighten everything they can, but then add all kinds of crap to make them more appealing and "safe", so all the weight plus some gets added back in. We end up with vehicles that are very flimsy in areas that get deemed non-critical, so they're practically disposable if they end up in a crash. Everyone excuses it because, "the vehicle did it's job and the person survived"....... scuse me, I'd like the vehicle to still be worth fixing after the person survives hitting the squirrel!

I was (perhaps not atypically) imprecise in my wording. Much weighty, structural stuff has been added to cars since the late 1990s. There was a good article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago explaining the nontrivial reasons why a stripped-down model 1989 Civic could get 50 mpg but a 200x model couldn't. It's not just the fluffy electronic stuff.

You've seen this video, yes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
(1959 Chevy vs. 2009 Chevy)