What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
Honda Civic 1.6 - Fuel consumption - bad or just normal? - sghughes42

I swapped from a 2000W 1.0 Yaris over to a 2004/04 1.6 Civic back in March. Since then I've been quite disappointed with the fuel consumption, getting around 35-36 on average for my normal travelling and no better than 38 even on a long run.

Is this normal for the car? I've tried looking on the Real MPG list but it doesn't go as far back as this model and I can't find any other Hondas listed which use this engine.

Normal travelling is a 5 mile commute to work with not all that much traffic along a mix of 30 / 40 / 50 roads plus trips to the shops and the odd 20 mile trip most weekends.

Over Christmas we went to London. Filled it up before I left, drove down at a steady 65 on the clock. Didn't use the car while there and filled it up at the start of the return journey, I'd got just over 38. That seems very low to me - I'd have expected nearly 50 out of the Yaris for a similar run.

Confusingly, the trip counter is also massively inaccurate. It typically shows around 42 for my normal usage and 45 for a run such as the London trip so it around 15% high. I'm surprised but don't have much experience of other cars to know if this is usual - the Yaris one was only per journey so I only got much of a check on longer runs but it seemed to tie up quite well.

I've checked tyre pressures, had a full service just before the MOT in December (which it passed).

The only minor thing is when I'm accelerating hard - for example up a slip road - it sometimes stutters a little but around 3000 rpm but other than that it seems to run very well.

I generally drive carefully with plenty of lift and coast and use of gears to slow down.

Am I just expecting too much, or is there something amiss?

Honda Civic 1.6 - Fuel consumption - bad or just normal? - RobJP

Yes, 35ish mpg would seem about right. Friend has got one, and gets similar economy to you.

Honda Civic 1.6 - Fuel consumption - bad or just normal? - Bolt

I had one for a year and had about the same in town, but did sometimes in summer get around 42 on a run, I had to scrap mine due to rear end smack otherwise I probably would still have it, good car imo

Honda Civic 1.6 - Fuel consumption - bad or just normal? - Peter.N.

I assume this is a petrol one, for relatively short journeys that sounds fine, a diesel would probably do 40-50mpg on that sort of journey.

Honda Civic 1.6 - Fuel consumption - bad or just normal? - sghughes42

Yes, 1.6 petrol.

Looks like I'm just expecting too much! I'm surprised things haven't moved on - I used to get the same mpg out of a 94L Fiat Tipo with more urban driving and my mother got around 32 mpg from an old A reg Saab 900!

I'd expected some drop from the Yaris but not quite that much.

Honda Civic 1.6 - Fuel consumption - bad or just normal? - Railroad.
Well despite people's perception that a modern car is modern, it actually isn't modern at all. The engine management system may be modern, but the engine itself is Victorian. Petrol engines are less than 30% efficient. Diesels slightly more at about 35%. That still means that more than 65% of the heat generated by burning your fuel ends up being dissipated into the air. When technology changes that ratio you may see an improvement in your fuel consumption. Until such time mid-30's MPG is about right for a 1.6 litre petrol.
Honda Civic 1.6 - Fuel consumption - bad or just normal? - balleballe

Dont forget that MPG in winter will always be lower.

I would expect around 40mpg to be honest, my mazda 3 is a 2 litre petrol and does 40mpg on a long trip @ 70mph

Honda Civic 1.6 - Fuel consumption - bad or just normal? - Avant

The basic idea of the internal combustion engine is indeed 19th century - but nowadays there are some engines that are more efficient than others. And the size of car that the engine is pulling makes a difference too.

About 10 years ago SWMBO had a Civic, a very good car which I've always thought was better than the disign that followed in it 2007. Hers was a 2.0 S, which gave about the same mpg as yours, SGHughes. I don't think we ever saw 40 mpg, which I can get on a long run with the current, much more powerful, petrol Octavia vRS.

I'll always regret trading the Civic in when SWMBO wanted something smaller - the first of her Minis. I should have taken on the Civic and run it for a bit instead of getting a noisy, sluggish Mercedes B200CDI, which despite being a diesel averaged only 39 mpg (about 45 on a long run if lucky).

We've never seen 40 mpg in any of the Minis either - so there are engines and engines.

Honda Civic 1.6 - Fuel consumption - bad or just normal? - sghughes42

Yes, I must admit I was surprised how hefty the Civic is compared to the Yaris, around 50% heavier, although the more recent Yarii have also been on the cake, beer and chips diet it seems...

Interesting how claimed MPGs seem to have risen significantly but actual MPGs are lagging a lot behind. I think the main thing I've found is that there is probably nothing wrong, it is just normal for the car....

Honda Civic 1.6 - Fuel consumption - bad or just normal? - Stumblebum

On my 1.6 Civic I used to get 37PMG mixture of town and country B, A road. On the motor way, I did get up to 43 mpg (once)

I ran it on cheaper supermarket petrol for 70K miles with no problem.

Yours sounds similar to mine.

On my old 2 litre petrol Accord I used to get 30 mpg (2004, model, 5 gears), may 32/33 with just motorway driving.

I pick up my 1.8 petrol Civic 6 gear tomorrow, hoping to get better MPG.

Honda Civic 1.6 - Fuel consumption - bad or just normal? - Falkirk Bairn

My Civic from the early 2000's did 35 mpg overall - mostly commuting to Glasgow. On a day trip to Aberdeen & back it could break 41mpg if you stayed below 70/75, otherwise it was 37+

Honda Civic 1.6 - Fuel consumption - bad or just normal? - RobJP

For most (NOTE : MOST) cars, fuel economy hasn't changed much in the past decade or more, though with diesels certainly, you're getting a lot more performance in terms of torque and HP, for similar economy.

As examples :

My 2003 BMW 320d estate. 150 bhp, averaged 45-50 mpg

My 2013 BMW 325d estate. 218 bhp. 45-50 mpg.

So for the basic same 2.0d engine (now in twin-turbo guise for the 325d), I'm getting no better fuel economy than I was 11 years ago. However, I've now got 68 bhp more, which is virtually identical to a 2.0 turbo petrol Impreza from the late 1990s. Which would average 25-28 mpg, if memory serves me correctly.