Honda Civic 1.6 iDtec - Poor Economy of 2014 cars
Discussion
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.
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
Claimed mpg is 78.5 (combined), I am aware these are acheived in relatively artificial rolling road / lab conditions.
After months of research before buying and as Tonka indicates my real world and reasonable expectation were 64 mpg from a very carefully driven car doing non city centre mixed driving - backed up by a pessimistic setting of whatcars 'true mpg' which stated 64.2 mpg.
After months of research before buying and as Tonka indicates my real world and reasonable expectation were 64 mpg from a very carefully driven car doing non city centre mixed driving - backed up by a pessimistic setting of whatcars 'true mpg' which stated 64.2 mpg.
Just looked at fuelly and there is something wrong with the maths on there...
It says 53.5 mpg for a 50 l capacity car (that you will struggle to empty below 44 litres) reportedly doing 590 miles - If I pro rata that has to be nearer 63 mpg
Ha Ha - It's not my right foot ! Honest Officer :-)
It says 53.5 mpg for a 50 l capacity car (that you will struggle to empty below 44 litres) reportedly doing 590 miles - If I pro rata that has to be nearer 63 mpg
Ha Ha - It's not my right foot ! Honest Officer :-)
Matt Clay said:
Civinfo 9G forums are rather lacking on threads relating to poor mpg in the 1.6 Diesel. They're mainly raving about it.
From the data I have collected already Matt, there is clearly no issues with the mpg on 2013 cars [VINSHHFK37?0DU######] (The 10 cars I have details on have a combined average of 68 mpg)
It is only the 2014 cars that seem to be struggling [VIN SHHFK37?0EU######], the four cars I have details on are averaging 48 mpg - 40% Less !!!
Hence the reason I want feedback from more 2014 car owners
Jifen said:
From the data I have collected already Matt, there is clearly no issues with the mpg on 2013 cars [VIN
SHHFK37?0DU######] (The 10 cars I have details on have a combined average of 68 mpg)
It is only the 2014 cars that seem to be struggling [VIN SHHFK37?0EU######], the four cars I have details on are averaging 48 mpg - 40% Less !!!
Hence the reason I want feedback from more 2014 car owners
Ah I see, sorry to hear that. Didn't quite get that from your first post.SHHFK37?0DU######] (The 10 cars I have details on have a combined average of 68 mpg)
It is only the 2014 cars that seem to be struggling [VIN SHHFK37?0EU######], the four cars I have details on are averaging 48 mpg - 40% Less !!!
Hence the reason I want feedback from more 2014 car owners
Maybe they accidentally fitted the 2.2? Mine averages 48
Matt Clay said:
Maybe they accidentally fitted the 2.2? Mine averages 48
Ha Ha, I have data on about fifteen 2.2's and they are comfortably averaging 48+ (many averaging 55).The 2013 cars are fine(averaging 68 in 'real world' driving) I think Honda have either changed a major engine component of been playing with the ECU MAP and EGR usage on the 2014 car - I obviously hope it's the latter and hope it can be resolved.
Without being grumpy, are you sure its not down to your driving? As a Salesmen, we used to have customers complain all the time about MPG on vehicles not getting whats claimed. I set a route, and would go with the customer so they drove it. I would then drive the same route, with the customer in the car, and normally gain 20% fuel economy, if not more!
How are things like your tyre pressures? Boot empty?
How are things like your tyre pressures? Boot empty?
LouD86 said:
Without being grumpy, are you sure its not down to your driving? As a Salesmen, we used to have customers complain all the time about MPG on vehicles not getting whats claimed. I set a route, and would go with the customer so they drove it. I would then drive the same route, with the customer in the car, and normally gain 20% fuel economy, if not more!
How are things like your tyre pressures? Boot empty?
Not grumpy at all, they are all reasonable (but obvious) questions you would discount at an early stage and I did.How are things like your tyre pressures? Boot empty?
In my 11th week of ownership now, I reported not happy at week 2 after doing research which shows the car's mpg does not improve with age (which was my belief for the first 2 weeks).
Have covered 3500 miles in that time so it's well used, mixed journeys and all driven with eco efforts, I am a 47 y/o skilled driver (have the certs to prove it) driven 30 years with the last 27 on a clean license and only interested in saving money these days - hence buying this car.
Never carried any load, at most 1 passenger (or 2 kids), but driver only 80% of time. No spare wheel, no jack, tyre pressures perfect to book, ECO mode with no aircon on very gentle throttle openings.
Given all the 2013 owners i have spoken to I am in no doubt I am comparing eggs with eggs
Some observations.
1, Buying a nearly new car seems an odd way to save money. Surely an older Focus or similar would be a better way to go. Man maths?
2, Try accelerating using around 1/2-2/3 throttle seems to work. I get about 55mpg from my Exeo and 50MPG from a 2.0TDCi focus, and I don't hang about too much.
3, Ask the dealer to reflash the ECU with the latest version of the map.
1, Buying a nearly new car seems an odd way to save money. Surely an older Focus or similar would be a better way to go. Man maths?
2, Try accelerating using around 1/2-2/3 throttle seems to work. I get about 55mpg from my Exeo and 50MPG from a 2.0TDCi focus, and I don't hang about too much.
3, Ask the dealer to reflash the ECU with the latest version of the map.
Does seem pretty piss-poor for something which clearly isn't going to set the world alight with its' performance. My knackered old 2.0 Pug will do 55mpg all day long - more on longer journeys, and it's had a remap.
Seems like you're going to be doing around 17k miles a year so it does make sense to get a diesel over a petrol, but the one you've bought isn't saving you much.
What I've found from hire cars is the modern 1.6d engines (Ford / Peugeot / Citroen etc all the same) require a good thrashing on motorways to keep up with traffic which sends the MPG into a nose-dive. A bigger-engined car may not be as good for the environment but it would be under so much less stress at motorway / A-road speeds it would probably return more on average.
My experience with the 1.6D cars hasn't been that good so far, the best we've sampled being the latest 308 HDi with the 6-speed, the worst a Kia C'EEd. The worst part is that these hateful little eco boxes are so common now what with CO2 emissions that the market will be absolutely littered with them in years to come, making 'good' cars very difficult to find.
Seems like you're going to be doing around 17k miles a year so it does make sense to get a diesel over a petrol, but the one you've bought isn't saving you much.
What I've found from hire cars is the modern 1.6d engines (Ford / Peugeot / Citroen etc all the same) require a good thrashing on motorways to keep up with traffic which sends the MPG into a nose-dive. A bigger-engined car may not be as good for the environment but it would be under so much less stress at motorway / A-road speeds it would probably return more on average.
My experience with the 1.6D cars hasn't been that good so far, the best we've sampled being the latest 308 HDi with the 6-speed, the worst a Kia C'EEd. The worst part is that these hateful little eco boxes are so common now what with CO2 emissions that the market will be absolutely littered with them in years to come, making 'good' cars very difficult to find.
C.A.R. said:
Does seem pretty piss-poor for something which clearly isn't going to set the world alight with its' performance. My knackered old 2.0 Pug will do 55mpg all day long - more on longer journeys, and it's had a remap.
Seems like you're going to be doing around 17k miles a year so it does make sense to get a diesel over a petrol, but the one you've bought isn't saving you much.
What I've found from hire cars is the modern 1.6d engines (Ford / Peugeot / Citroen etc all the same) require a good thrashing on motorways to keep up with traffic which sends the MPG into a nose-dive. A bigger-engined car may not be as good for the environment but it would be under so much less stress at motorway / A-road speeds it would probably return more on average.
My experience with the 1.6D cars hasn't been that good so far, the best we've sampled being the latest 308 HDi with the 6-speed, the worst a Kia C'EEd. The worst part is that these hateful little eco boxes are so common now what with CO2 emissions that the market will be absolutely littered with them in years to come, making 'good' cars very difficult to find.
It is pi$$-poorSeems like you're going to be doing around 17k miles a year so it does make sense to get a diesel over a petrol, but the one you've bought isn't saving you much.
What I've found from hire cars is the modern 1.6d engines (Ford / Peugeot / Citroen etc all the same) require a good thrashing on motorways to keep up with traffic which sends the MPG into a nose-dive. A bigger-engined car may not be as good for the environment but it would be under so much less stress at motorway / A-road speeds it would probably return more on average.
My experience with the 1.6D cars hasn't been that good so far, the best we've sampled being the latest 308 HDi with the 6-speed, the worst a Kia C'EEd. The worst part is that these hateful little eco boxes are so common now what with CO2 emissions that the market will be absolutely littered with them in years to come, making 'good' cars very difficult to find.
I took the wife's Pug 207 1.4 petrol to work (which is notably thirsty) and drove it how I drive the Civic (very gently + coast down hills)and even it managed 47 mpg !!!
Don't be fooled though - they are not an ordinary 1.6D as they have armfulls of torque and are not your stereotypical 1.6D slug, they have similar torque to the 2.2D
Edited by Jifen on Thursday 22 May 17:43
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff