jkm345 Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 i'm just wondering whats everyone getting with their civics on mile per gallons. I would like to know year, model and any mods done. I have a DC2 that is getting terrible gas mileage and im starting to think of copping myself a civic so lemme know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphries Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 i get 28-34mpg... 00 civic si.. your car is messed up if youre gettin less than 25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmgogo Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 95 sol s (d15b7 bored over 1.7) usualy get 28-35, however day before last i got less than 10mpg for a 30 mile stretch. 5k-7k rpm in 1st 2nd and 3rd for 30 miles doesnt get you far, but damn its fun on twisty ass mountain roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedDemon Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 92 civic hb. stock used to get 36. now getting 23-24 for unknown reasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeryon Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 95 civic dx sedan 5spd header, high flow cat, exhaust, ac delete 36-42 depending on how heavily I beat the hell out of it. Regardless of my foot i never get less then 36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamEj6 Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 i get 50mpg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocifero Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 Just got 30mpg but it's usually 26-28mpg. Which is pretty good for an H22 in a ~3000 lb. car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelSolSweetie Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 31-32 almost always Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmgogo Posted March 15, 2010 Share Posted March 15, 2010 It will be interesting to see what this turbo z6 is going to get over the next week and a half. Im estimating mid 20s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphries Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 any turbo honda under 400 hp can get 25-30 mpg still if you keep it in vacuum during cruising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocifero Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 any turbo honda under 400 hp can get 25-30 mpg still if you keep it in vacuum during cruising. What does "in vacuum" mean? And what does that mean for performance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeryon Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Means driving like a sane human should. In a turbo car you create additional power when the turbo is 'activated', which only occurs under hard acceleration. If you keep off of it and accelerate slowly and/or cruise the turbo is just idling without producing extra power. The turbo isn't producing any power is when it is in a vacuum state and the car is running and getting fuel mileage just like a non-turbo vehicle would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocifero Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Means driving like a sane human should. In a turbo car you create additional power when the turbo is 'activated', which only occurs under hard acceleration. If you keep off of it and accelerate slowly and/or cruise the turbo is just idling without producing extra power. The turbo isn't producing any power is when it is in a vacuum state and the car is running and getting fuel mileage just like a non-turbo vehicle would. Gotcha. That makes sense. Kinda hard to do that I would think, especially once you first get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
novtec//eh3 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 im getting around 35 with a b18b with i/h/e. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooleric2000 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 i'm just wondering whats everyone getting with their civics on mile per gallons. I would like to know year, model and any mods done. I have a DC2 that is getting terrible gas mileage and im starting to think of copping myself a civic so lemme know. You should try to get your car checked up, might need some tuning or maintenance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dual-500 Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 '91 Si hatch, D16A6 that burns a little oil, replaced head with rebuilt last month to drive it for another inspection cycle while I build a twin cam motor. Has DC cold air intake, K&N air filter, 4-2-1 header, test tube, 2.5" OBX catback with baffle removed. Cam is advanced 1-2 degrees and ignition timing is set per stock factory specs. Compression ratio is also stock. Gets 28.75 mpg in town and I drive it - not too hard, but still ring it out pretty much daily. Haven't had it on a road trip yet. Next test is to install the OBX baffle in tailpipe tip and measure in town mileage. Then, do same test on the highway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedSkorponik Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 I drive a stock 92 DX hatch and I avg between 36-40mpg with 50% of my driving on the freeway. On a road trip to CA I got a best of 47mpg. My car was stripped and I was just rolling w/ just my drivers seat. I know lowering my car helped with air resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelSolSweetie Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 I know lowering my car helped with air resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocifero Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeryon Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 well, at highway speeds the lowering of a car would have minimal impact on the aerodynamics of a vehicle. lowering his weight would have been the dominant force in the better mpg numbers, as would keeping the speed strictly to 65 and not having a lead foot (if that was the case) theoretically, it should make the fuel mileage marginally worse as the smaller space under the car would help to increase downforce and increase the impact of friction with the tires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelSolSweetie Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 ^what he said and then some Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocifero Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 well, at highway speeds the lowering of a car would have minimal impact on the aerodynamics of a vehicle. lowering his weight would have been the dominant force in the better mpg numbers, as would keeping the speed strictly to 65 and not having a lead foot (if that was the case) theoretically, it should make the fuel mileage marginally worse as the smaller space under the car would help to increase downforce and increase the impact of friction with the tires. Lowering a car makes it moar aerodynamic and lessens the uplift force, especially at greater speeds. This would only increase gas mileage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeryon Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 technically, lowering a car doesn't change it's aerodynamics at all as the shape of the vehicle is still exactly the same. if we are talking about an airplane wing, where the bottom is flat and the top is rounded. the air accelerates over the curved top of the wing but remains constant under the wing. this causes lower pressure over the wing and produces lift. a car is a different scenario due to proximity of the ground. the car splits the air and forces some over and some under. the amount of air forced under the car is approximately the same regardless of the height of the vehicle. with a lower car the air is compressed and accelerated under the vehicle. the lower you are the more it accelerates. the accelerated and compressed air causes the pressure under the car to be lower and thus generates additional down force. the faster you go the more down force created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelSolSweetie Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 lessens uplift=increases downforce you guys are saying the same thing but one is saying it would increase mpg, the other saying not really i agreee that the weight was the biggest factor in that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocifero Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 Probably. I don't feel like googling sh*t and writing a research paper on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.