Honda Civic 1.6 iDtec - Poor Economy of 2014 cars
Discussion
Hi Jifen
Luckily I found your post as I recently purchased a 2014 Honda Civic 1.6 iDTEC in the SR spec.
I've done approximately 1,600 miles and have averaged 63mpg.
I have noticed that if I drive with a mildly 'heavy' right-foot, the instant average shows around 58mpg. If I drive 'carefully' and that is by feathering the throttle then I get between 60mpg and 63mpg. My highest so far has been 64mpg but I cannot figure out how others have managed 67mpg on average.
Perhaps this is a software issue on the 2014 models?
Luckily I found your post as I recently purchased a 2014 Honda Civic 1.6 iDTEC in the SR spec.
I've done approximately 1,600 miles and have averaged 63mpg.
I have noticed that if I drive with a mildly 'heavy' right-foot, the instant average shows around 58mpg. If I drive 'carefully' and that is by feathering the throttle then I get between 60mpg and 63mpg. My highest so far has been 64mpg but I cannot figure out how others have managed 67mpg on average.
Perhaps this is a software issue on the 2014 models?
Jifen said:
As the owner of a 2014 Civic 1.6 iDtec I have been very underwhelmed by the 48 mpg it is consistently averaging.
I did hold the belief that it would improve with age but after checking various 2013 cars of spritmonitor it is quite clear that they show no improvement whatsoever as their ODO climbs.
I have an open complaint case with Honda at the moment and are collecting VIN# for 2013 and 2014 1.6 iDtec cars, together with their average mpg and ODO readings (from those who have kept such records).
This information will be treated with the strictest confidence and only shared with Honda
If you own one then please PM me with your details (as above) or if you have friends with one then please point them in my direction.
Why is the official figure 51?I did hold the belief that it would improve with age but after checking various 2013 cars of spritmonitor it is quite clear that they show no improvement whatsoever as their ODO climbs.
I have an open complaint case with Honda at the moment and are collecting VIN# for 2013 and 2014 1.6 iDtec cars, together with their average mpg and ODO readings (from those who have kept such records).
This information will be treated with the strictest confidence and only shared with Honda
If you own one then please PM me with your details (as above) or if you have friends with one then please point them in my direction.
Edited by Jifen on Wednesday 21st May 21:43
Jeez talk about splitting hairs.
People need to realise that the world is full of BS, whether that be 0-60 times, mpg, we're all in it together, or even yes i'm single with no kids
I get 16 mpg urban on mine, the official is 18, it wouldn't prompt me to raise an official compliant.
Man up.
I have a 63 plate Civic 1.6 diesel which is the pre-facelift model so presumably a 2013 model. It has now done nearly 13k miles and the best I've averaged so far (based on brim to brim calculations) is 77 mpg (with Esso premium diesel). I try and use premium diesel every few tanks, it does seem to improve economy by a few mpg. Typically, on standard diesel it averages 70 mpg without too much difficulty, the computer regularly shows 80+ mpg. When new, it was averaging about 60 mpg and has steadily improved as it has loosened up.
I do quite a lot of motorway driving which probably helps and I never have that eco function on as I don't think it makes much difference to the economy, climate control is on permanently, I just leave it in auto mode. Mine has the standard 16" wheels and I always deactivate the stop-start, I can't see how this is good for an engine tbh. I'm surprised the facelift cars seem to have poorer mpg, I had mine in January and was going to wait until March when the 2014 MY cars were launched.
I do quite a lot of motorway driving which probably helps and I never have that eco function on as I don't think it makes much difference to the economy, climate control is on permanently, I just leave it in auto mode. Mine has the standard 16" wheels and I always deactivate the stop-start, I can't see how this is good for an engine tbh. I'm surprised the facelift cars seem to have poorer mpg, I had mine in January and was going to wait until March when the 2014 MY cars were launched.
Edited by Sprice on Wednesday 10th September 00:44
Edited by Sprice on Wednesday 10th September 00:49
I borrowed one of these for a week when the 2013 model came out. I trashed the thing around from 7 miles, and it returned 42 mpg which was good considering the same driving is about 20 mpg from my daily driver.
They had some fuel saving thing, where people were getting 80+.
Checked on Fuelly, and it's 53.5. So that's about 64 UK MPG.
I'd have to say it's your driving.
They had some fuel saving thing, where people were getting 80+.
Checked on Fuelly, and it's 53.5. So that's about 64 UK MPG.
I'd have to say it's your driving.
Buzz Lightyear said:
I'd have to say it's your driving.
I am sure you would (and I am sure you would be wrong).New V40 D4 Volvo on Order with a claimed mpg of 74.5 (Vs 78.5 for the Civic), 75 bhp more, 100Nm more Torque and 2.0L instead of 1.6... and I'll show my bare ar$e in Woolworth's window if it does not do more MPG than the civic (I won't drive it in the granny way I drove the Civic either) - so we will see if it's my driving then eh
Not to mention I am currently running a friends P Reg Dihatsu Fourtrak, 2.8L Diesel and weighs 2.6 Tons, running on 255 tyres. For the record it's doing 32 mpg on the same runs (well no I don't do occasional long trips as I did in the Civic) and with the same driver!
I have a 2013 Civic 1.6 i-dtec, had it 13 months now from new.
When I first got the car, the reported mpg on the trip computer was up around 70mpg, however the actual mpg based on miles vs how much fuel I put in was around 50mpg.
As it ran in, the trip computer average dropped and the actual increased, and I was getting between 55mpg for short journeys and 65mpg for long ones. The trip computer usually told me 10% more mpg than what the car was doing...
A few weeks ago the car was recalled for a new MAP sensor and re-flash of the ECU. Since that, the trip computer now appears to reflect the actual mpg, rather than adding 10%, woohoo.
My current tank, I'm getting 60mpg, and while I drive efficiently (predictive driving with little un-neccesary braking), I don't hang about. I'm quite happy with that, but it's a far cry from 78.
I reckon I could get 70mpg on a long steady drive, 75 if I drive like a snail..
Also worth noting...
- Winter and short journeys kill the economy, as the car never gets to temp
- Winter tyres decrease mpg by 10% over the Michellin Energy Savers (probably 5% decrease over a decent gripping summer tyre)
- Posh diesel gets me another 2-3% (V-Power etc)
- mpg is significantly better at 55mph than 70mph. This car does not seem to be very aerodynamic... The 2.0 diesel in a BMW 320D or a Passatt Bluemotion returns much better mpg on a motorway which is crazy (had both as hire cars).
Am I happy with the car, reasonably... Would I buy it again? No...
When I first got the car, the reported mpg on the trip computer was up around 70mpg, however the actual mpg based on miles vs how much fuel I put in was around 50mpg.
As it ran in, the trip computer average dropped and the actual increased, and I was getting between 55mpg for short journeys and 65mpg for long ones. The trip computer usually told me 10% more mpg than what the car was doing...
A few weeks ago the car was recalled for a new MAP sensor and re-flash of the ECU. Since that, the trip computer now appears to reflect the actual mpg, rather than adding 10%, woohoo.
My current tank, I'm getting 60mpg, and while I drive efficiently (predictive driving with little un-neccesary braking), I don't hang about. I'm quite happy with that, but it's a far cry from 78.
I reckon I could get 70mpg on a long steady drive, 75 if I drive like a snail..
Also worth noting...
- Winter and short journeys kill the economy, as the car never gets to temp
- Winter tyres decrease mpg by 10% over the Michellin Energy Savers (probably 5% decrease over a decent gripping summer tyre)
- Posh diesel gets me another 2-3% (V-Power etc)
- mpg is significantly better at 55mph than 70mph. This car does not seem to be very aerodynamic... The 2.0 diesel in a BMW 320D or a Passatt Bluemotion returns much better mpg on a motorway which is crazy (had both as hire cars).
Am I happy with the car, reasonably... Would I buy it again? No...
Ive recently gone into one of these, a 2014 that ticked over 5000 miles last night.
I have to admit, the economy varies so much on the driver. My OH, who in her 318d Auto gets 47mpg, gets 68mpg firmly out of the civic, whereas I seem to average mid 50's. In her BMW, I get 61. I don't drive differently in either vehicle, and nor does she, but its amazing the difference a driver really can have on the economy of it.
I have to admit, the economy varies so much on the driver. My OH, who in her 318d Auto gets 47mpg, gets 68mpg firmly out of the civic, whereas I seem to average mid 50's. In her BMW, I get 61. I don't drive differently in either vehicle, and nor does she, but its amazing the difference a driver really can have on the economy of it.
I'm pleased that the OP has found a solution in his quest for low cost motoring, by ditching a 2014 car and ordering a 2015 one.
Perhaps that does work if the Civic "caught alight" in a field somewhere.
But I'm also quite astonished at how many people when confronted with the bare facts - several 2013 cars averaging 60+ mpg, several 2014 cars averaging 48mpg, manage to say "It's you" or "You can't expect to equal the official figures" just goes to show how ignorant and argumentative many of the people on here are.
Andy
Perhaps that does work if the Civic "caught alight" in a field somewhere.
But I'm also quite astonished at how many people when confronted with the bare facts - several 2013 cars averaging 60+ mpg, several 2014 cars averaging 48mpg, manage to say "It's you" or "You can't expect to equal the official figures" just goes to show how ignorant and argumentative many of the people on here are.
Andy
Thank you Andy; that was exactly my point and supported by sufficient research and information for me to see it as fact.
Whilst I no longer had the car I got the MAP recall letter a few weeks ago and did wonder if they had found the difference in issuing this recall - appreciate more views on this matter and would love to think it was.
I cannot dis the Honda [literally] - nor would want to after the support I got; and I am intrinsically a repeat and pro Honda customer; but I can give you some comparisons on my new drive, having now covered 2,500 miles in it.
On Paper the Volvo is a very different car
Capacity: 2.0L Vs 1.6L
Boost: Twin Turbo Vs Variable Vane Single Turbo
Power: 202hp Vs 120hp
Torque: 400Nm Vs 300Nm (but feels like double)
Although other things are less different...
Co: 99 Vs 94 (both VED free)
Claimed economy: 74mpg Vs 78.5mpg
List price: £30k Vs £28.5k
For the record the Volvo is doing no where near it's claimed mpg either on my 'runs' but in colder climatic conditions, with a very different driving style, it is averaging the same 48 mpg.
However there are three VERY big differences in comparing this figure...
1) Having driven the former like a nun, I was not going to endure the same torture and the Volvo gets driven as I want, in fact due to the way it delivers it's power it temps you to squeeze the throttle, so my driving style in it is 3x worse than the former; and damn does it make me smile.
2) The Volvo is capable of delivering into the 90's (mpg) when you tease the throttle on a run (not that I have managed to for long) where I never got above 63 even for want of trying in my former car.
3) The Hills: I live on the edge of the Pennines and I cannot make any trip without going up hill and down dale, this I think is where the main difference is; the small primary turbo on the Volvo means it delivers torque from 1,000 rpm and I could easily (if my self control allowed) drive on 1/4" of throttle through the gears. The pedal travel on the former was far more pronounced and 5x more throttle was needed to deliver the same result.
Does the Volvo feel worthy of it's price tag - hell yes, I drive it how I want, and I get the same mpg figures (albeit colder), if driven carefully it can (in comparison) deliver more mpg than the former. Not to mention it is beautiful and the internals are quality personified.
Do I like Honda? - Yes I love them... Had I paid £10k less for the car I would have probably loved it; had I been able to drive it 'normally' whilst delivering 10mpg over 48mpg I would have probably loved it.
Given their near identical price tag do the above two cars compare?... You will have to draw your own conclusions as PM is the only way I could answer that
Dealer Experience score - Volvo 35% - Honda 150%
Whilst I no longer had the car I got the MAP recall letter a few weeks ago and did wonder if they had found the difference in issuing this recall - appreciate more views on this matter and would love to think it was.
I cannot dis the Honda [literally] - nor would want to after the support I got; and I am intrinsically a repeat and pro Honda customer; but I can give you some comparisons on my new drive, having now covered 2,500 miles in it.
On Paper the Volvo is a very different car
Capacity: 2.0L Vs 1.6L
Boost: Twin Turbo Vs Variable Vane Single Turbo
Power: 202hp Vs 120hp
Torque: 400Nm Vs 300Nm (but feels like double)
Although other things are less different...
Co: 99 Vs 94 (both VED free)
Claimed economy: 74mpg Vs 78.5mpg
List price: £30k Vs £28.5k
For the record the Volvo is doing no where near it's claimed mpg either on my 'runs' but in colder climatic conditions, with a very different driving style, it is averaging the same 48 mpg.
However there are three VERY big differences in comparing this figure...
1) Having driven the former like a nun, I was not going to endure the same torture and the Volvo gets driven as I want, in fact due to the way it delivers it's power it temps you to squeeze the throttle, so my driving style in it is 3x worse than the former; and damn does it make me smile.
2) The Volvo is capable of delivering into the 90's (mpg) when you tease the throttle on a run (not that I have managed to for long) where I never got above 63 even for want of trying in my former car.
3) The Hills: I live on the edge of the Pennines and I cannot make any trip without going up hill and down dale, this I think is where the main difference is; the small primary turbo on the Volvo means it delivers torque from 1,000 rpm and I could easily (if my self control allowed) drive on 1/4" of throttle through the gears. The pedal travel on the former was far more pronounced and 5x more throttle was needed to deliver the same result.
Does the Volvo feel worthy of it's price tag - hell yes, I drive it how I want, and I get the same mpg figures (albeit colder), if driven carefully it can (in comparison) deliver more mpg than the former. Not to mention it is beautiful and the internals are quality personified.
Do I like Honda? - Yes I love them... Had I paid £10k less for the car I would have probably loved it; had I been able to drive it 'normally' whilst delivering 10mpg over 48mpg I would have probably loved it.
Given their near identical price tag do the above two cars compare?... You will have to draw your own conclusions as PM is the only way I could answer that
Dealer Experience score - Volvo 35% - Honda 150%
Edited by Jifen on Tuesday 1st December 19:59
Hi Jifen, et al
I nearly forgot about my earlier post. My car (2014 Civic SR grade) just crept over 7,000 miles earlier this week. It has had the MAP sensor replaced. I now note that the mpg figures have gone up slightly, although if I drive with a heavy right foot mpg stays at around 58. By driving carefully, and I mean driving like a nun (no offense to nuns out there!), I've seen the mpg reading climb as high as 88mpg!
What I have noticed is that I get higher mpg figures driving at around 55 mph than at 70 mph with 5th gear vs 6th respectively. It must be driving style but Honda hasn't told us what the sweet spot is to maintain a high rate of mpg's. I actually think that by driving at around 55 mph or well over 70 mph (and I'm not suggesting anyone to break the speed limit to find out :-X) will give better mpg readings than driving at around 70mph.
I have to admit that I am a bit of a Honda fan since I did have a Type R many years ago and the new Type R has me salivating but one could never use a Type R as a proper car to commute to work....the suspension being way too harsh! Although, I am a bit peed with the introduction of the Civic Sport as I wished they had taken it out earlier as the bodykit does look nice on the Civic.
What do I think? I think Honda have made a relatively great diesel engine but I wouldn't consider it to be class leading in any respect and some of the so called "hype" on the 78mpg would appear to be their marketing department getting overactive. If they made the engine return 78mpg for drivers who drive with a lead foot then Honda would have been on to a guaranteed winner, I'm sure of it. Maybe the 2013 Civic's did return better mpg than the 2014 versions and if that is the case, what did Honda change to make it worse?
I nearly forgot about my earlier post. My car (2014 Civic SR grade) just crept over 7,000 miles earlier this week. It has had the MAP sensor replaced. I now note that the mpg figures have gone up slightly, although if I drive with a heavy right foot mpg stays at around 58. By driving carefully, and I mean driving like a nun (no offense to nuns out there!), I've seen the mpg reading climb as high as 88mpg!
What I have noticed is that I get higher mpg figures driving at around 55 mph than at 70 mph with 5th gear vs 6th respectively. It must be driving style but Honda hasn't told us what the sweet spot is to maintain a high rate of mpg's. I actually think that by driving at around 55 mph or well over 70 mph (and I'm not suggesting anyone to break the speed limit to find out :-X) will give better mpg readings than driving at around 70mph.
I have to admit that I am a bit of a Honda fan since I did have a Type R many years ago and the new Type R has me salivating but one could never use a Type R as a proper car to commute to work....the suspension being way too harsh! Although, I am a bit peed with the introduction of the Civic Sport as I wished they had taken it out earlier as the bodykit does look nice on the Civic.
What do I think? I think Honda have made a relatively great diesel engine but I wouldn't consider it to be class leading in any respect and some of the so called "hype" on the 78mpg would appear to be their marketing department getting overactive. If they made the engine return 78mpg for drivers who drive with a lead foot then Honda would have been on to a guaranteed winner, I'm sure of it. Maybe the 2013 Civic's did return better mpg than the 2014 versions and if that is the case, what did Honda change to make it worse?
OP - I have a July 2014 1.6 i-dtec SE-PLUS.
I've done several mpg checks, pretty much every tank since I bought it, so roughly 5000 miles.
The worst average has been 58.6, where I had a heavier foot than normal. The best is around 70mpg.
A lot of mince posted on here by folk who haven't driven this car/engine combination, it's really quite lively with good torque all over, few if any flat spots and zero turbo lag. Comparing it to a Ford is a laugh with their mpg claim history. Honda routinely tend to be around the 90% mark in real world mpg.
Bearing in mind this is the second diesel they've made, it's pretty impressive.
/fanboy
I've done several mpg checks, pretty much every tank since I bought it, so roughly 5000 miles.
The worst average has been 58.6, where I had a heavier foot than normal. The best is around 70mpg.
A lot of mince posted on here by folk who haven't driven this car/engine combination, it's really quite lively with good torque all over, few if any flat spots and zero turbo lag. Comparing it to a Ford is a laugh with their mpg claim history. Honda routinely tend to be around the 90% mark in real world mpg.
Bearing in mind this is the second diesel they've made, it's pretty impressive.
/fanboy
As it happens ours is going in for the maf sensor recall tomorrow after putting it off for ages.
Hopefully it'll improve performance as it's very laggy and suffers with a juddery clutch after just 6500 miles. The washer jets barely spray and it developed a strange grinding noise near side rear under acceleration the other day.
Let's see what they say.
Hopefully it'll improve performance as it's very laggy and suffers with a juddery clutch after just 6500 miles. The washer jets barely spray and it developed a strange grinding noise near side rear under acceleration the other day.
Let's see what they say.
Hi guys, of course all this was written prior to the great 'VW' scandal.
I am now on another marque (and in the main VERY happy), much more so than the Civic.
However...
It is clear in my mind that all marques (who use EGR) in 'high performance' diesel applications suffer at the hands of dosing too much EGR (to meet NoX regs) which in turn soots up the various parts and engine.
We all have our own opinions and mine is one which Honda became aware of such potential in their earlier cars and altered the EGR map to combat this, which had the nett result of reducing the efficiency over the former years cars.
Sound far fetched? - I have witnessed exactly that in another Marque!
I am now on another marque (and in the main VERY happy), much more so than the Civic.
However...
It is clear in my mind that all marques (who use EGR) in 'high performance' diesel applications suffer at the hands of dosing too much EGR (to meet NoX regs) which in turn soots up the various parts and engine.
We all have our own opinions and mine is one which Honda became aware of such potential in their earlier cars and altered the EGR map to combat this, which had the nett result of reducing the efficiency over the former years cars.
Sound far fetched? - I have witnessed exactly that in another Marque!
Well, I think generally the 1.6 diesels aren't very good for economy, we've got a 1.6 TDI Yeti Greenline (one of the naughty VAG engines) and it was quoted at 61 mpg, but we've been struggling to achieve much more than 45 mpg, and I was expecting something like 50ish real-world.
It seems to be that the bigger the engine, the lower the claimed MPG, but then, the closer the real world figure is.
It seems to be that the bigger the engine, the lower the claimed MPG, but then, the closer the real world figure is.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff