Honda Accord or Honda Civic?

[tradosaurus]

I am debating whether to switch cars with my son who is in college right now.

He is driving a 2001 Honda Accord (4 door) with 4 cylinder VTEC engine and manual transmission.

My 1999 Civic coupe EX is manual with a bit smaller engine.

The Accord has gotten 32 hwy mpg with no mods and fully loaded with people.

The Civic recently got 32 mpg fully loaded and tire pressure mod.

The Accord has leather seats, sunroof and the A/C works consistently. I'm wondering if I air the tires up to sidewall max how much more mpg I could squeeze out?

What say you?

[Jay2TheRescue]

I'd say give it a shot, it can't hurt.

[bowtieguy]

the civic should get 40mpg...easy. 40+ w/ some effort. the accord, i my view, is a better fit for a less experience driver(safer) however.

[tradosaurus]

Thanks. I did a 160 mile round trip with the Civic but had it loaded down. I did do 32 mpg which was probably the best I could expect.

[SentraSE-R]

The two cars have the same EPA combined, city, and highway mpg (25/22/29 mpg). I don't think you'll see a significant difference between the two. A heads-up hypermiler can coax 140% of EPA on highway drives, and 170% of EPA in combined driving, solely by improving driving technique. You should be able to get >40 mpg on highway drives, and >42 mpg combined with either car.

[tradosaurus]

Well I certainly going to try!

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

The two cars have the same EPA combined, city, and highway mpg (25/22/29 mpg). I don't think you'll see a significant difference between the two.

not unless the civic comes w/ the dual cam vtec, which the OP did not specify. he did, however specify the accord has the vtec so...it stands to reason...

furthermore, if the civic does in fact NOT have either of the single or duel cam vtec motors, he WILL see a very significant difference especially if one compares the old epa estimates. these are what i look at as potential numbers...and the OP has achieved such w/ the accord.

[SentraSE-R]

He said it's an EX. EXes produced the most HP of all Civics, except those years when Si models were offered. That indicates the EXes came with the DOHC engine.

[philip1]

The ex was a sohc vtec

[imzjustplayin]

Originally Posted by tradosaurus

Thanks. I did a 160 mile round trip with the Civic but had it loaded down. I did do 32 mpg which was probably the best I could expect.

32mpg is terrible, you should be doing far better than that in the civic. the civic needs a tuneup and the moderator who is deleting my posts needs to stop.

Think about it, if you can get 32mpg in an accord, when it's rated at 29mpg, why would you think getting 32mpg in a civic when it's rated at 34mpg be acceptable?

[Fetch]

Originally Posted by *************

32mpg is terrible, you should be doing far better than that in the civic. the civic needs a tuneup and the moderator who is deleting my posts needs to stop.

Think about it, if you can get 32mpg in an accord, when it's rated at 29mpg, why would you think getting 32mpg in a civic when it's rated at 34mpg be acceptable?

...says the per son with a 30.02 mpg 90-day average in his 1998 Civic. Was it loaded with 4 people and luggage the entire time you achieved this "terrible" fuel economy? Also note that the EX has more power and shorter gearing than your LX.

32 MPG is within the normal non-hypermiler range for a Civic EX, especially when loaded down. Ditto the Accord.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Originally Posted by *************

and the moderator who is deleting my posts needs to stop.

You could have said what you needed to say in that post with out being rude. That's why we deleted it PRIVATELY. No infraction or ban was issued. Deleting the post was the least we could do. More action can be taken (and in public) if you feel this was insufficient.

[BEEF]

I would probably rock the accord if you could do the same with it (even if it were a touch worse). it's good to have a nice comfy vehicle.

also, generally I don't like ticking off the moderators (especially the SUPER moderator)....but that's just me

you may also want to consider how your son is going to treat the car. if the accord is a nicer car, you may want to keep it for yourself as college kids aren't known for taking really good care of vehicles. I know when I was in college I pretty much lived in my car. there were drink bottles, crackers, and even clotes all in it. it smelled pretty bad too. that was quite some time ago but I don't think college mentality has changed that much.

[Fetch]

Originally Posted by BEEF

I would probably rock the accord if you could do the same with it (even if it were a touch worse). it's good to have a nice comfy vehicle.

also, generally I don't like ticking off the moderators (especially the SUPER moderator)....but that's just me

you may also want to consider how your son is going to treat the car. if the accord is a nicer car, you may want to keep it for yourself as college kids aren't known for taking really good care of vehicles. I know when I was in college I pretty much lived in my car. there were drink bottles, crackers, and even clotes all in it. it smelled pretty bad too. that was quite some time ago but I don't think college mentality has changed that much.

I think this makes a lot of sense.

[imzjustplayin]

Originally Posted by Fetch

...says the per son with a 30.02 mpg 90-day average in his 1998 Civic. Was it loaded with 4 people and luggage the entire time you achieved this "terrible" fuel economy? Also note that the EX has more power and shorter gearing than your LX.

32 MPG is within the normal non-hypermiler range for a Civic EX, especially when loaded down. Ditto the Accord.

How about you read my fuel log instead of judging.. Not to mention the fact that the OP did 100% highway driving for the entire trip.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Not to be mean or anything, but I did look at your fuel log, and there's only 2 entries, and they average well below the combined rating for the vehicle.

[imzjustplayin]

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue

Not to be mean or anything, but I did look at your fuel log, and there's only 2 entries, and they average well below the combined rating for the vehicle.

Did you actually read the entries? If you read the entries, you can see that the car still has work to be done and essentially there are only two entries because the car isn't being driven. Car may pass smog with good marks but that doesn't mean it's not wasting fuel and not in tip top shape. On top of everything else, I believe I have worn wheel bearings and I definitely need to do something about the transmission which has a failing input shaft bearing. When cruising on the highway, according to the scangauge, I'm getting 45-50mpg. This is far better than the 32mpg the OP got with his civic. Yes he was driving faster than me, and may be driving an EX, but if he can get 32mpg out of an Accord rated at 29 but only 32mpg out of a Civic rated at 32mpg on the new EPA cycle, then there is something wrong.

My Civic is rated at 37 on the old test cycle and 34 on the new test cycle yet I can achieve 45-50mpg at my reduced speed. It's not unreasonable to expect the OP to achieve a similar improvement over the EPA rating.

[Jay2TheRescue]

But your numbers on the gaslog do not reflect this. You would attack someone who said some mod they did on their car got them incredible mileage with only 2 entries, no matter how good the numbers showed. I'm just saying you should hold yourself to the same standard you hold everyone else to.

[imzjustplayin]

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue

But your numbers on the gaslog do not reflect this. You would attack someone who said some mod they did on their car got them incredible mileage with only 2 entries, no matter how good the numbers showed. I'm just saying you should hold yourself to the same standard you hold everyone else to.

I already know for certain the fuel economy these cars get. Just go to fueleconomy.gov and see the user submitted fuel economy numbers. The LOW for the M/T '99 Civic EX is 31mpg with a high being 42 which is very plausible thanks to the shorter gearing. Not saying the OP should be getting my fuel economy but definitely should be getting better than what he got.

A "loaded down" car doesn't affect highway fuel economy as much as city fuel economy, so the fact that the car was loaded isn't really relevant unless you're climbing huge hills.

[Fetch]

Originally Posted by *************

Did you actually read the entries? If you read the entries, you can see that the car still has work to be done and essentially there are only two entries because the car isn't being driven. Car may pass smog with good marks but that doesn't mean it's not wasting fuel and not in tip top shape. On top of everything else, I believe I have worn wheel bearings and I definitely need to do something about the transmission which has a failing input shaft bearing. When cruising on the highway, according to the scangauge, I'm getting 45-50mpg. This is far better than the 32mpg the OP got with his civic. Yes he was driving faster than me, and may be driving an EX, but if he can get 32mpg out of an Accord rated at 29 but only 32mpg out of a Civic rated at 32mpg on the new EPA cycle, then there is something wrong.

My Civic is rated at 37 on the old test cycle and 34 on the new test cycle yet I can achieve 45-50mpg at my reduced speed. It's not unreasonable to expect the OP to achieve a similar improvement over the EPA rating.

2 things:
(1) With only 2 tanks recorded as a baseline, your scangauge may not be calibrated correctly. Yes, I own one, too.
(2) Keep in mind that the Accord has 42% more torque than the Civic (152 ft lbs vs 107 ft lbs). An engine with more torque is less affected by load than an engine with higher torque. Thus, it is not uncommon for a situation such as this, where the OP's mileage suffered less in the loaded Accord than in the loaded Civic. The positive effect of torque in moving a heavier load is why the big rigs have huge diesels and not tiny motors that spin to 20,000 RPM. When my '99 Si was loaded with 4 or 5 people, its 200 hp (modded) made much less difference than the piddly 114 ft lbs of torque, and the car became a total dog.

[Jay2TheRescue]

If that's the case, then say "Look at user submitted mileage reports on FuelEconomy.gov", not "Look at my gaslog"

[imzjustplayin]

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue

If that's the case, then say "Look at user submitted mileage reports on FuelEconomy.gov", not "Look at my gaslog"

I was rebutting this guy's comment:

Originally Posted by Fetch

...says the per son with a 30.02 mpg 90-day average in his 1998 Civic. Was it loaded with 4 people and luggage the entire time you achieved this "terrible" fuel economy? Also note that the EX has more power and shorter gearing than your LX.

32 MPG is within the normal non-hypermiler range for a Civic EX, especially when loaded down. Ditto the Accord.

I said read the fuel log because of the comments I made, not because of the fuel economy numbers. It should have been obvious there was something wrong with the car considering I had lots of stuff to say and how I only accumulated 2 tanks of gas over the course of a year.. Not to mention the whole I left the car parked for over a year thing..

I wasn't trying to tell OP that my fuel log is an example of the great fuel economy he could be getting..

[theholycow]

[Fetch]

Originally Posted by *************

I already know for certain the fuel economy these cars get. Just go to fueleconomy.gov and see the user submitted fuel economy numbers. The LOW for the M/T '99 Civic EX is 31mpg with a high being 42 which is very plausible thanks to the shorter gearing. Not saying the OP should be getting my fuel economy but definitely should be getting better than what he got.

A "loaded down" car doesn't affect highway fuel economy as much as city fuel economy, so the fact that the car was loaded isn't really relevant unless you're climbing huge hills.

I just visited fueleconomy.gov. Note that the Civic EX 5-speed had an identical powertrain from 1996-2000. The average FE reported for those years:
1996: 34.2 (range: 26-42)
1997: 35.2 (range: 33-36)
1998: 31.7 (range: 19-39)
1999: 35.4 (range: 31-42)
2000: 31.8 (range: 26-36)

The average of these results is 33.66 mpg.
The weighted average, taking into account the # of vehicles reporting for each year, is 33.47 mpg.

I said it before, and I will continue to do so: 32 mpg is reasonable performance for a loaded 1999 Honda Civic EX 5-speed driven by a non-hypermiler at freeway speeds. 32 mpg does not mean there is something mechanically wrong with the car.

Even so, I think the OP lost interest in this thread long ago.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Originally Posted by Fetch

Even so, I think the OP lost interest in this thread long ago.

Good point.