Whats the secret behind the Civic HF's high fuel economy?

[Eli]

1985 - 49/54
1986-87 - 52/57
1988-89 - 50/56
1990-91 - 49/52

The Civic VX also gets high numbers;

1992-93 - 48/55
1994-95 - 47/56

That was the last year of 50+MPG.

The 1996 Civic HX gets 39/45.

:Q

That 1.5L I4 must be one hell of an efficient engine.

I gotta get me one of them.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Tiny engine + lighter car (less safety features & creature comforts) = highly fuel efficient vehicle

 

[dug777]

One word...ThunderCougarFalconBird!

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Tiny engine + lighter car (less safety features & creature comforts) = highly fuel efficient vehicle

But it's only 0.1L smaller than the traditional 1.6L engine found in the oldish Civics, but gets much better numbers...

They were workin' some voodoo.. lol

 

[Brainonska511]

Other cars could be more efficient too, but as engine power increased, instead of adding to fuel efficiency, most car companies took the "more horsepower" route.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Tiny engine + lighter car (less safety features & creature comforts) = highly fuel efficient vehicle

Not a good explanation.

 

[everman]

How are the safety features anyways? And crash test ratings?

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Tiny engine + lighter car (less safety features & creature comforts) = highly fuel efficient vehicle

Not a good explanation.

Why not? Weight and engine design are pretty much the two biggest factors effecting MPG IMO. Transmission gearing is another. Maybe it has really really tall gears so you can cruise at a low RPM, but I doubt that's a huge factor here.

Also remember later Civic models using the 1.7L had two to three different power ratings and accordingly different fuel economy. They probably just tuned the 1.5L for maximum fuel efficiency.

 

[dug777]

No idea...my 89 323 hatch (four door) is a dog for fuel consumption (1.6l carbied)...it does weigh a ton tho

 

[swtethan]

Hx

 

[Nikamichi]

Originally posted by: everman
How are the safety features anyways? And crash test ratings?

The same with any other vehicle in it's class. If a truck hits you, you die.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: dug777
No idea...my 89 323 hatch (four door) is a dog for fuel consumption (1.6l carbied)...it does weigh a ton tho

hehe, i didn't realise it was this bad tho

MPG (city)
26

MPG (highway)
30

MPG (combined)
27

EDIT: actually it's a bit better than that, since it's the 5spd manual:

MPG (city)
28

MPG (highway)
33

MPG (combined)
30

 

[GalvanizedYankee]

I'm not familiar with them, however:

Lighter because of safety standards.

Lower to the ground for less frontal area and air drag under the car=rough ride.

With current emisions standards, some cars run a tad rich so the cat can run hotter for better cleaning of the exhaust. Kinda true, as lean burn leaves excess O2 in the chamber to combine with nitrogen. This is why some small diesels have a throttle plate to restrict air intake at part throttle, it reduces oxides of nitrogen.

I believe those engines had intake valves that would switch fron two valve operation to one intake at lower rpm inorder to maintain intake port velocity. Did they not have a dual intake manifold that served the same purpose? If they did, combined it works very well. It reduces the drag from the pumping the piston must do on the intake stroke.
They may not have the valve operation feature, but one Honda model did. Might just be the dual intake track. Might have had a less restrictive exhaust system than is used now.

IDK...You tell me.

They did get better gas milage than most motorcycles.


...Galvanized

 

[swtethan]

vtec

 

[Vic]

92 bhp
2100 lb. curb weight
Tiny low rolling resistance tires
Relatively tall gearing

Great gas mileage but they are gutless as hell. To get to Government Camp up the 26, you'd have to downshift to 3rd and floor it all the way, and even then you'd be lucky if you were doing 40 mph at the top.


edit:

Originally posted by: swtethan
vtec

No vtec in those models.

 

[Rubycon]

No power? :laugh:

Probably a deathtrap too.

 

[GalvanizedYankee]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
No power? :laugh:

Probably a deathtrap too.

You don't even own a car or drive. :laugh:


...Galvanized

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: swtethan
vtec

The HF/HX/VX was designed to have a leaner burn than normal - as a result, it was even more gutless than the standard version.

Or, as Honda called it - VTEC-E (Economy)

Originally posted by: Vic
No vtec in those models.

Not the conventional riceboy declaration of "VTAK!!" which was designed to increase power output - but yes, it did have it.

- M4H

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: GalvanizedYankee

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
No power? :laugh:

Probably a deathtrap too.

You don't even own a car or drive. :laugh:


...Galvanized

:laugh:

 

[clickynext]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: dug777
No idea...my 89 323 hatch (four door) is a dog for fuel consumption (1.6l carbied)...it does weigh a ton tho

hehe, i didn't realise it was this bad tho

MPG (city)
26

MPG (highway)
30

MPG (combined)
27

EDIT: actually it's a bit better than that, since it's the 5spd manual:

MPG (city)
28

MPG (highway)
33

MPG (combined)
30

Wow, consumes more than its late descendant, the 2.0L Protege5. I get around 29 MPG city with this thing.

 

[potato28]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Tiny engine + lighter car (less safety features & creature comforts) = highly fuel efficient vehicle

:beer:

 

[GalvanizedYankee]

M4H, go further back and the CVCC was a VG idea at the time. Emissions killed it.


...Galvanized

 

[Aquaman]

Stick a Mugen Power sticker on it and it will be 15% faster & 15% more fuel efficient

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: clickynext

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: dug777
No idea...my 89 323 hatch (four door) is a dog for fuel consumption (1.6l carbied)...it does weigh a ton tho

hehe, i didn't realise it was this bad tho

MPG (city)
26

MPG (highway)
30

MPG (combined)
27

EDIT: actually it's a bit better than that, since it's the 5spd manual:

MPG (city)
28

MPG (highway)
33

MPG (combined)
30

Wow, consumes more than its late descendant, the 2.0L Protege5. I get around 29 MPG city with this thing.

tell me about it

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: swtethan
vtec

The HF/HX/VX was designed to have a leaner burn than normal - as a result, it was even more gutless than the standard version.

Or, as Honda called it - VTEC-E (Economy)

Originally posted by: Vic
No vtec in those models.

Not the conventional riceboy declaration of "VTAK!!" which was designed to increase power output - but yes, it did have it.

- M4H

VTEC-E was never used in the 1.5L. For the USDM, that was introduced in the '96 Civic HX with the 1.6L.