My brother's 93' civic fuel economy.

[AaronB]

Originally posted by: ScottFern
You do understand the downside to that though? When a soccer mom goes to answer her phone and smashes into a 93 honda civic with MAYBE 2 front air bags its like almost instant death.

I take comfort in knowing my I4 Camry while not getting the absolute best mileage is a lot safer than some older cars.

14 years from now someone will be saying the same thing about your Camry.

 

[Black88GTA]

Originally posted by: lyssword
My brother filled up his 93 civic hatch (1.5liter) with $15 of gas @3.18 (now up to 3.25 ) which is ~4.7 gallons. His fuel gauge dipped to approximately same point as before filling gas up, and odometer reads 202 miles I was there when he pushed the button after filling up. That's about 42 miles per gallon

He drives conservatively (no sudden acceleration) with manual transmission. Our city's traffic not too bad (only slightly bad at 4-6pm), and he sometimes takes freeway to travel from one side of city to another.

Just thought I'd let you know

That would be nice...but the problem with that is, he has to drive a '93 1.5L Honda Civic to get that mileage. No thanks.

I don't mind paying more for gas in order to enjoy driving. That said, I get 12 - 14 mpg around town, 21 or so on the expressway - premium only.

 

[gsethi]

Originally posted by: AaronB

Originally posted by: ScottFern
You do understand the downside to that though? When a soccer mom goes to answer her phone and smashes into a 93 honda civic with MAYBE 2 front air bags its like almost instant death.

I take comfort in knowing my I4 Camry while not getting the absolute best mileage is a lot safer than some older cars.

14 years from now someone will be saying the same thing about your Camry.

looking at the recent quality drop at Toyota, his camry might not last 14 years

<< before you start bashing me, family has owned 2 toyotas, 1 honda, 1 nissan and 1 infiniti ---- currently infiniti and toyota.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: ScottFern
You do understand the downside to that though? When a soccer mom goes to answer her phone and smashes into a 93 honda civic with MAYBE 2 front air bags its like almost instant death.

I take comfort in knowing my I4 Camry while not getting the absolute best mileage is a lot safer than some older cars.

Actually, the "SUVs are safer" thing was much more true when there were only a few on the road. These days, chances are that your soccer mom will be crashing into another SUV (or a wall...how common are head-on collisions anyway?), so the lack of good crumple zones and solid truck chassis works against her.

That said, my motorcycle gets 55mpg, and according to the internet it's faster than almost any stock sports car out there, so I'm happy. So long as I don't crash.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: lyssword
My brother filled up his 93 civic hatch (1.5liter) with $15 of gas @3.18 (now up to 3.25 ) which is ~4.7 gallons. His fuel gauge dipped to approximately same point as before filling gas up, and odometer reads 202 miles I was there when he pushed the button after filling up. That's about 42 miles per gallon

He drives conservatively (no sudden acceleration) with manual transmission. Our city's traffic not too bad (only slightly bad at 4-6pm), and he sometimes takes freeway to travel from one side of city to another.

Just thought I'd let you know

You know what? I love filing up my minivan that gets around 14-15mpg driving 80% city. YEAH! I have a receipt thats $54 taped on the wall in front of my desk. Too bad that was back when gas was under $3.30. I just havent let the gas tank drop that low since...

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: ScottFern
You do understand the downside to that though? When a soccer mom goes to answer her phone and smashes into a 93 honda civic with MAYBE 2 front air bags its like almost instant death.

I take comfort in knowing my I4 Camry while not getting the absolute best mileage is a lot safer than some older cars.

Actually, the "SUVs are safer" thing was much more true when there were only a few on the road. These days, chances are that your soccer mom will be crashing into another SUV (or a wall...how common are head-on collisions anyway?), so the lack of good crumple zones and solid truck chassis works against her.

That said, my motorcycle gets 55mpg, and according to the internet it's faster than almost any stock sports car out there, so I'm happy. So long as I don't crash.

The thing is newer cars are heavier and heavier. An old 1990 Corolla weighed under 2000 lbs. Now the curb weight is over 2500 lbs. The curb weight for a Camry is well over 3000 now, and it used to be under 2500. Old cars are not as safe also due to older technology incorporated and less safety features, but the other factor is weight, and as cars get bigger and heavier, simple momentum transfer will tell you who gets pwned.

 

[RU482]

42MPG is damn nice, but I'd be afraid to drive an econobox that old. Too much rust (visible and hidden)that a car from 93 (especially a honda of that vintage) has...yikes Major structural comprimise

 

[secretanchitman]

i average about 12-13...but everyday, i sometimes accelerate very fast cause we have a-hole drivers in our town (hinsdale, il sucks).

i drive a 2002 Mercedes-Benz ML500 (5.0L V8).

 

[BillGates]

I'd rather have more than 9 horsepower.

 

[chris7b]

I would really think my 1.8 sentra would do better, but i get about 29 or so city and 33 on the highway. I can't really complain as i got for 5000 less than corrolla or civic

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: redly1
42MPG is damn nice, but I'd be afraid to drive an econobox that old. Too much rust (visible and hidden)that a car from 93 (especially a honda of that vintage) has...yikes Major structural comprimise

Iowa, yes. Spokane, Washington...no.

That's the problem with salting the roads...there are better chemicals for keeping the snow off, but they cost more. So everyone uses salt in the midwest, and "taxes" you by forcing you to replace your car all the time as it rusts out.

 

[redgtxdi]

Originally posted by: lyssword
My brother filled up his 93 civic hatch (1.5liter) with $15 of gas @3.18 (now up to 3.25 ) which is ~4.7 gallons. His fuel gauge dipped to approximately same point as before filling gas up, and odometer reads 202 miles I was there when he pushed the button after filling up. That's about 42 miles per gallon

He drives conservatively (no sudden acceleration) with manual transmission. Our city's traffic not too bad (only slightly bad at 4-6pm), and he sometimes takes freeway to travel from one side of city to another.

Just thought I'd let you know

Except that there's a problem with your math. Well, actually not the math, but the method.

The "approximately the same point as before" doesn't work.

Here's the process that will get you the accurate MPG......

Fill up
Drive 'til tank's just safely getting low.
Fill up again & write down # of gallons it took to fill 'er back up again & divide the # of miles shown on your odometer by the # of gallons (to the 'tenths' place) it just took to fill the car up again.

Repeat 4 times over a 1 week to 1 month period. (Depending on how much you drive)

Calculate average of your MPG results from preceding fill ups & calcs.

Answer...........

Probably something closer to 30 or maybe 35 tops.

Rule #1.............don't use dollars & cents & 10ths of cents to figure actual gallons.
Rule #2...........don't approximate benchmarks on a gas gage.
Rule #3..........use a handful of full-tanks to get the right calcs.
Rule #4........prepare to have your aspirations spewed on like carbon emissions!

 

[Thegonagle]

Thats just swell.

Could be a little off though. (Read the post above mine to learn the only way to get a half-decent calculation without special metering equipment installed on vehicle's fuel system.)

 

[ScottFern]

Lets get something straight I was NOT bashing anyone. And my low quality Camry (LOL) gets around 26mpg and thats fine with me and its plenty reliable. Its funny how people hear about a transmission issue and they assume the entire car is junk and it couldn't be farther from the truth. Yes, the interior is cheaper and some people experienced transmission issues that were all taken care of under warranty. I like having 7 air bags, call me crazy!

 

[randomlinh]

My average is 27.71. Including autocrosses. Missing maybe half a dozen fill ups from my data though. This is since 2 years ago, to this day. go mazda.

 

[SagaLore]

My 98 Neon (manual) got that as well. My 04 Neon (manual) doesn't do as well though.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: lyssword
My brother filled up his 93 civic hatch (1.5liter) with $15 of gas @3.18 (now up to 3.25 ) which is ~4.7 gallons. His fuel gauge dipped to approximately same point as before filling gas up, and odometer reads 202 miles I was there when he pushed the button after filling up. That's about 42 miles per gallon

He drives conservatively (no sudden acceleration) with manual transmission. Our city's traffic not too bad (only slightly bad at 4-6pm), and he sometimes takes freeway to travel from one side of city to another.

Just thought I'd let you know

Ha ha. Should have gotten a Prius. Then he'd be getting 45

I guess some of us just care a little more about the environment :roll:

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: AaronB
That's the most useless method of measuring mpg I have ever heard of.

 

[TheStu]

In my 98 Saturn I get about 25-27 city and about 36-39 highway. Love that my little 9 year old car gets better range on a smaller tank than anybody i know. Just wish i could improve the city mileage.

 

[McGyver]

 

[ViviTheMage]

my old 94 civic used to get that...

 

[thomsbrain]

if you want to measure your actual MPG, fill it up to the top (no top-off), zero out your trip odometer, then drive until the tank is nearly empty. fill the tank, and divide your mileage by the number of gallons it took to re-fill your tank (the number you used). by using almost the entire tank, you reduce the impact of minute differences in fill levels from fill-up to fill-up.

my Accord V6 got 27.8 MPG on my last lead-foot tank of gas. not too shabby.

 

[lyssword]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Originally posted by: lyssword
My brother filled up his 93 civic hatch (1.5liter) with $15 of gas @3.18 (now up to 3.25 ) which is ~4.7 gallons. His fuel gauge dipped to approximately same point as before filling gas up, and odometer reads 202 miles I was there when he pushed the button after filling up. That's about 42 miles per gallon

He drives conservatively (no sudden acceleration) with manual transmission. Our city's traffic not too bad (only slightly bad at 4-6pm), and he sometimes takes freeway to travel from one side of city to another.

Just thought I'd let you know

Except that there's a problem with your math. Well, actually not the math, but the method.

The "approximately the same point as before" doesn't work.

Here's the process that will get you the accurate MPG......

Fill up
Drive 'til tank's just safely getting low.
Fill up again & write down # of gallons it took to fill 'er back up again & divide the # of miles shown on your odometer by the # of gallons (to the 'tenths' place) it just took to fill the car up again.

Repeat 4 times over a 1 week to 1 month period. (Depending on how much you drive)

Calculate average of your MPG results from preceding fill ups & calcs.

Answer...........

Probably something closer to 30 or maybe 35 tops.

Rule #1.............don't use dollars & cents & 10ths of cents to figure actual gallons.
Rule #2...........don't approximate benchmarks on a gas gage.
Rule #3..........use a handful of full-tanks to get the right calcs.
Rule #4........prepare to have your aspirations spewed on like carbon emissions!

That's what he did. He refilled gas tank when it was almost empty (lowest line). And at 202 miles the gauge was almost exactly at the same spot. Now yes, it's not digital and super precise, but I'm usually good at estimating numbers. The 4.7 gallons he filled up with took it from lowest point to more than half a tank. Therefore the number deviation should not be more than 1/10th of total (another estimate). 1/10th precision of 5 gallons = .5 gallons. If so, 5.2 (at most) gallons would mean 39 mpg.

Also I now remember that when he filled his gas tank, he was almost running out of gas as in danger of car stopping because it was out of gas. But after 202 miles the gauge was showing a little bit of gas left over, prolly 10-20 more miles to go (est.)

Knowing the exact price and exact amount of money spent is exactly same as writing down number of gallons filled in, just with some math, because he always fills up to max number of gallons allowed to the last cent. And yes, he did zero out the odometer after refill.

I stand by my original 42mpg estimate Not completely scientific (lack of number of trials), but close enough

 

[Evadman]

I will point out the flaws in your logic.

Originally posted by: lyssword
at 202 miles the gauge was almost exactly at the same spot. Now yes, it's not digital and super precise, but I'm usually good at estimating numbers.

Maybe. Except there are no numbers involved for you to estimate, there is a little needle. Even if you were good at estimating needle placement, that needle is not as accurate as you apparently think it is.

Originally posted by: lyssword
Therefore the number deviation should not be more than 1/10th of total (another estimate)

Apparently, you believe that 2 estimates somehow make the sum of 2 estimates be 'more correct'. That thinking is not correct.

Originally posted by: lyssword
Also I now remember

So, now you remember something else. It seems your memory is not what it should be. So why exactly do you think that you would remember the exact needle placement? (assuming the needle was even accurate to begin with)

Originally posted by: lyssword
But after 202 miles the gauge was showing a little bit of gas left over, prolly 10-20 more miles to go (est.)

Sweet, Estimate #3. That's ok though as like I said before you apparently think that more estimates lead to a better overall estimate.

Originally posted by: lyssword
I stand by my original 42mpg estimate Not completely scientific (lack of number of trials), but close enough

You have 3 layered estimates. Assuming each was off by 10% (which I don't think is unreasonable at all expecialy since that is what you, yourself, point out in your first estimate), that would put your total margin for error at ~32%. So you could have gotten between 28.5 MPG and 55.4 MPG given your final result of 42 MPG.

<edit>
had an extra quote tag.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

And people are convinced they need a prius when all they need is an old honda civic... idiots.

 

[lyssword]

Originally posted by: Evadman
I will point out the flaws in your logic.

Originally posted by: lyssword
at 202 miles the gauge was almost exactly at the same spot. Now yes, it's not digital and super precise, but I'm usually good at estimating numbers.

Maybe. Except there are no numbers involved for you to estimate, there is a little needle. Even if you were good at estimating needle placement, that needle is not as accurate as you apparently think it is.

Originally posted by: lyssword
Therefore the number deviation should not be more than 1/10th of total (another estimate)

Apparently, you believe that 2 estimates somehow make the sum of 2 estimates be 'more correct'. That thinking is not correct.

Originally posted by: lyssword
Also I now remember

So, now you remember something else. It seems your memory is not what it should be. So why exactly do you think that you would remember the exact needle placement? (assuming the needle was even accurate to begin with)

Originally posted by: lyssword
But after 202 miles the gauge was showing a little bit of gas left over, prolly 10-20 more miles to go (est.)

Sweet, Estimate #3. That's ok though as like I said before you apparently think that more estimates lead to a better overall estimate.

Originally posted by: lyssword
I stand by my original 42mpg estimate Not completely scientific (lack of number of trials), but close enough

You have 3 layered estimates. Assuming each was off by 10% (which I don't think is unreasonable at all expecialy since that is what you, yourself, point out in your first estimate), that would put your total margin for error at ~32%. So you could have gotten between 28.5 MPG and 55.4 MPG given your final result of 42 MPG.

<edit>
had an extra quote tag.

Actually I only had 1 very educated guess, which was reading analog fuel gauge. If it was digital I would be 100% correct. All other numbers are 100% accurate. All of that other stuff I posted was to give you an idea of how accurate my only guess was.