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
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.
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
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
elephantstone said:
Shocker..
Person buys 1.6 diesel econobox and complains it is not returning the quoted MPG.
FFS I'm not complaining that it won't achieve it's quoted figures Person buys 1.6 diesel econobox and complains it is not returning the quoted MPG.
I'm complaining that's it's 65% less than it's quoted figures!
I am also complaining that it's doing 40% less that last years identical car
Pferdestarke said:
I checked my wife's 2013 1.6 idtec. It's got 739 miles on the clock and is only used around town and a few a roads.
57.9mpg.
I drove it to the chippy.
57.8 and falling.
Those seats are quite uncomfortable. And I hit my knee on the bulging door card getting in it.
Still, a decent little motor.
Sounds about where it should be... Here is my (warm) last two 3 mile trips no traffic57.9mpg.
I drove it to the chippy.
57.8 and falling.
Those seats are quite uncomfortable. And I hit my knee on the bulging door card getting in it.
Still, a decent little motor.
32.4 & 34.1 can't upload pic from phone
Pferdestarke said:
So what's happening then? Why the variation and are you sure it's not just a computer software glitch?
I have yet to find one 2014 car doing anything different to mine. I have details of 3 other 2014's doing exactly same as mine (within 3mpg)Honda have changed something and not in a good way!
Computer usually over reads by about 3 mpg. My 48 mpg is exact calculation fill to fill against ODO reading
Don't worry guys I've done my homework. I held the same view that MPG would improve a little but having checked out 50 identical cars on spritmonitor.de where people have logged every mile from new, it is VERY clear that NONE have shown any improvement from new to over 20k miles.
I have consumption details of 10 x 2013 cars & 6 x 2014 cars and there is thus far a clear 20 mpg gap between them, the former averaging 68, the latter (like mine) averaging 48mpg.... No down to tyre size or pressure, ODO reading, driving style or colour!!! Just down to the year it was made !
I have consumption details of 10 x 2013 cars & 6 x 2014 cars and there is thus far a clear 20 mpg gap between them, the former averaging 68, the latter (like mine) averaging 48mpg.... No down to tyre size or pressure, ODO reading, driving style or colour!!! Just down to the year it was made !
Fittster said:
You have to thrash a 1.6D to keep up with traffic on the typical motorway????
You really don't have to thrash these, arms full of torque, can cruise on 1/10th throttle at 70mph and dial a speed change easier than most petrols.The lowest 2013 car is averaging 62 mpg and in his own words 'has a very heavy right foot' and does not drive with any care for economy. The very best 2014 car I have details on is averaging 53 mpg and that's 80% easy motorway driving. This puts them a country mile apart and circa 20mpg when driven in a similar manner
In contrast worst 2014 is a averaging 45 mpg, best 2013 is averaging 74 mpg over every one of its 23k miles
Edited by Jifen on Wednesday 28th May 21:16
Jimboka said:
Jifen has said repeatedly that the issue is not due to driving style.
There is probably another thread where economy driving wisdom can be shared.
Will be interesting to find out what has been changed on the 2014 cars, keep us posted!
A voice of reason - Thank you, of course I will keep all updated, this is the latest...There is probably another thread where economy driving wisdom can be shared.
Will be interesting to find out what has been changed on the 2014 cars, keep us posted!
God knows why but Honda have insisted it so I have been loaned another brand new 'EU' and surprise surprise, I would estimate from the over reading OBC it's averaging 45 mpg.
Thus far Honda are not hearing the very clear message I have laid on a plate for them, all substantiated with very compelling hard data
Grated theirs is a tourer (which does 2 mpg less), but auto express state their test car as hoping to improve from it's 47 mpg http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/honda/civic/87118/lon...
Edited by Jifen on Wednesday 28th May 23:14
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!
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 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!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff