2016 Honda Civic Real World MPG Review: How Fuel Efficient is the new Turbo?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ธ.ค. 2015
- ( www.TFLcar.com ) The 2016 Honda Civic is all new and more fuel efficient with a CVT transmission. In this TFLcar MPG test we find out just how fuel efficient this new Honda is in real world highway testing. Does it get the promised EPA 42 MPG on the Highway? Watch the video to find out.
( / tflcar ) Please visit to support TFLcar & TFLtruck.
Check us out on:
Facebook: ( / tflcar )
Twitter: ( / tflcar )
and now even Truck Videos on TH-cam at:
The Fast Lane Truck ( / tflcar )
and classic cars as well at:
TFLClassics ( / classicsunleashed ) - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
I got 50 MPG going 65 MPH once in my 2013 Civic EX, although I was using an 18 wheeler to reduce drag.
The speed matters. At 75 mpg that car is wasting fuel.
Now that Andre is speaking English instead of only Russian, I like listening to him in the videos.
When he was speaking only Russian it was driving me crazy because I couldn't understand what he was saying.
So Andre: THANKS, and keep up the good work !
Andre sends his best. Thanks for the support!
I really like this new test you guys are doing. Amazing REAL real world testing =)
Thanks for the review on this car as it is on my top 5 list of vehicles I am considering purchasing next fall. So many variables on this kind of test but almost 40mpg is really good and I am sure mpg will improve slightly as the motor fully breaks in. Love your videos Andre and glad you are part of the TFL team.
Watching Andre review is awesome! Great to see him behind the camera
I've gotten 49 mph, but I'm here at sea level and have gotten good at hyper mileage. Glad I decided to buy this car!
very nice Real World Test, respect to you guys, TFL!
I love you guys shows, keep up the good work
I have a 2017 Civic with 1.5 liter turbo and on a trip from Colorado Springs to Phoenix AZ and back, last week I got 45 miles per gallon. On level stretches I was getting 48 mpg.
40 mpg at 74mph in what is a fairly large car, is very good. I bet a smart car wouldn't be much better.
+georgebushwack smartfortwo gets 39 mpg
+Tim Borisenko Smart gears are geared so short that mileage drops pretty significantly above 55. 39MPG at 55, probably closer to 30 at 75
i am sure the EPA rating is for 60mph not 74mph.
18 Cruze diesel is damn near 60.. we need to see a test of that. It eats civic for breakfast lunch and dinner
@@thewireman134 if you're gonna compare a diesel gallon to a gas gallon then a jumbo jet eats and shits cruzes
44.2 mpg from the car, and the actual mpg was 39.9 That's off by quite a bit IMO. Thanks for the HONEST real world reviews! Best car and truck channel on YT.
I like the new Civic! We went with the 17 Elantra though. It's rated lower in mpgs but we regularly see 42 freeway with the regular NA 2.0 engine even at 80 mph in Utah. Hyundai understated and over-delivered with mpg this time which I love. I think the Civic and Elantra are some of the best in this class.
Excellent. Having sat in a 2016 Civic at the recent Las Vegas auto show I'd happily consider a Civic if function follows form.
Hello, I remember that one of the features from the new civic is that their is a light in your dashboard that turns green or white depending on how effectively you're driving. And you had it green. Also, maybe you should try using the Eco mode at the same speed and do a video about it to see if there is a difference and if it really works!
my family of four of us went on a trip from Timmins in northern Ontario to Batcawana Bay, over 1000kms there and back on a tank and 1/2 of fuel... very mountainous around Lake Superior, no issues with power, comfort, or gadgets including no volume nob. 2016 Civic EX-T.
You guys should do a more in depth 1 on 1 with the new Civic vs the Mazda 3 if you can! I saw the multi-car comparison but there wasn't much time for depth there.
love how Roman stepped in at the end! haha
The fuel economy of the car can be seriously affected by headwinds, too. I remember some 25 years ago my 1990 Honda Civic LX sedan got 37 mpg at 65 mph with a 20 mph tailwind and 32 mpg with a 20 mph headwind.
+Sacto1654 That's why it was a round trip. This civic just sucks.
Honda has done realty good can't wait for si to come out
Honda engines are the most advanced of our time, providing power and amazing, I mean amazing fuel efficiency! There is no other that comes close to Honda
At least the new Civic with the 1.5 turbo gets pretty close to its estimated gas mileage, unlike certain Ford Ecoboost motors. People also have to remember that a car's fuel economy is rated by the EPA in somewhat more favorable conditions. The conditions that Nathan, Roman, and Andre test the cars in are more of a "worst case" than other review sites. In that regards, I think Honda did very well with the new 1.5 turbo. We will have to see how well the new turbos do as far as reliability goes over the coming years.
That being said, my Mazda 3i hatchback gets 45mpg real world on the highway @ 70mph. Mazda has really knocked it out of the park with the engineering of their skyactive engines.
+Mad Pistol hmm EcoBoost engines in europe have fuel efficiency very similar to this "in a sticker".
+carz89 Agreed. my Hondas have always met or exceeded EPA numbers. Fact is, the new Civic is more fuel efficient than ever and considering the less than optimal conditions this was tested in, this is a good showing for the Civic.
I own a Ford Fusion 1.5 ecoboost.
I commute every day about 40 miles each way @71 miles per hour. Easily get 36-37 mpg. Easily. And the fusion is much larger than the civic. No complaints.
+Thomas Rock They're underrated on nissans (at least historically in my experience). The ratings are very odd.
+Mad Pistol Your comment is significantly flawed, specifically when you said "the EPA [tests] in somewhat more favorable conditions". As mentioned by Thomas Rock, the EPA does not rate the fuel economy of a vehicle, the automaker does. With that in mind you can assume that Honda tests their N/A engines and turbocharged engines using the same parameters, but as seen by real world numbers, the turbo does not get its mpg unless you baby it while the N/A engine often exceeds estimates. The fact is that turbocharged motors struggle to get their mpg estimates if you tap into the turbo. I don't understand why automakers keep going in the turbo direction.
5 OBVIOUS issues:
1 - You had a passenger in the car (Say an extra 65KG), along with some light luggage/camera gear I'd assume.
2 - You didn't fill up at the same exact pump. (I noticed the Love's sign in the background).
3 - A mile above sea level.
4 - What was the outside temperature? Turbo engines perform better in cool climates.
5 - Was the Air-Conditioning on in your test?
That's still pretty impressive even if it didn't reach EPA's 42 highway mpg. I have a 2002 Civic EX and all it can muster is 39/40 on the highway driving 70-75 mph (as per writing down miles driven / gallons used) and the 2016 Civic EX-T (and L and Touring) can blow my car's doors off. :) Good Job, Honda!
I already noticed that the engine turns a LOT slower at highway speeds vs mine. My car engine turns close to 3400 rpm at 70 mph. This car looked like it was turning a LOT slower than that.
Thank you for the video, The Fast Lane Car!
Hello there, nice video, though can you do its fuel efficient in the city where theres alot of frquent stop and start in the traffic? im pretty sure the Mpg will be less but not sure aboit it in the real world. Cheers!
Finally a real review counting actual gallons used, thats the way I do it. Total trip miles / by gallons = mpg
Do a 100 mile loop MPG test on the C7. You will be pleasantly surprised. Some owners have seen over 30 MPG
I daily a 2015 civic si and at highway speeds of between 75-80mph I easily get 35mpg. I assume that if I drive a little more controlled I can get almost 40, the gearing in the si is a little too short for really good mpg. I still love it though.
My real world numbers on my 2019 Honda Civic 1.5L have been about 3 MPG less than the trip computer. Last test was 37 computer vs. 34 real world. This was about 75% freeway/25%city using the Eco mode.
Hey TFL Car are you guys going to be at the North American International Auto Show at Cobo Hall in Detroit, Michigan in January 2016?
+Curtis Taylor yes. we will be in Detroit for the show. We hope to go live from the show.
отличная работа Abdré could it be many things but the results have give or take 10% off the estimated and that makes them ok.
That's some good mpg's out of the engine and now I know civic has a very optimistic trip computer at altitude on the highway
Quite impressive given your speed... the freeways around me regularly are 55-65mph so I would expect to get real world 42ish. What was your average speed during the test?
I went from California all the way to Pennsylvania in my ext coupe stayed in penn for a week as well as dealing with huge traffic and stopping at the Grand Canyon I averaged about 46-48
I live in Florida. I put my 2013 Civic on Ecomode and Cruise control around 68mph and I get 40mpg easily. I've gotten to 44mpg on a 120 round trip distance. On flat land and 70mph or a little less 40-45mpg can be easily achieved. Eco mode helps more on the highway versus city driving.
Nice car, I want this!
Holy crap, look at all those hoses in the engine compartment...damn!
40 MPG is very good number. EPA testing is done at 50 m/h speed and yours was much higher at 75 miles per hour..I own 2015 civic EXL..very good fuel economy and reliability
I wish my vehicle got 40mpg at 75mph. I get about 17.5mpg at 65mph.
+Johnathan Yinger What car?
John Appleseed
2002 nissan xterra 4x4
Don't we all. My truck gets about 13 mpg at that speed
My parents' 2011 Pilot 4WD gets about 21 MPG at that speed, but then again, it totally depends on the driving you did before it. If you literally do 65 the WHOLE tank, you might even get 23, 24 at the slightest. But if we just do 65 for about 5 minutes, 21 MPG.
John Appleseed I went through 3 full tanks of just highway travelling to get that number.
39.9 mpg at 75 mph and 1 mile above sea level, is still really good.
Did you check the miles from the odometer with a GPS? The ODO miles might be off, since it is just an estimate from tire rotations.
Hey TFL car when are you guys coming to DC?
You could eliminate a potential source of error by noting the amount of fuel before and after the second click (on each fill-up), as seeing whether that varies. The total error between your observation and the car's computer is around 0.10 gallons, could just be the difference in the "second click".
I get consistent 42 mpg highway in my '17 Si. Best while driving conservative on highway 48 mpg.
I recently started getting 27.5 MPG on my dash
Roman why didn't you do this TFL car review? Also I am in the market for a new compact and am focused on the 2016 Honda Civic EX-T and VW Jetta Sport. Is the sportiness worth the drop in mpg?
Could 2 bodies and camera equipments cause the difference? or did you try it with just one person in the car?
Very good fellows,
I think if they test for real world numbers and they are trying to be more serious about it, double click at the pump does not cut it. It's like measuring distance you run with Fitbit instead of Garmin GPS. Get some precise equipment to measure fuel used and GPS to make sure you are correct. Double click fill up method, what a joke.
+Roman O FYI: We used a GPS to measure the exact distance. Please watch some of our other MPG testing
Being scientific meaning someone can take an experiment and reproduce it. In your case you are relying on phone GPS and clicks at the pumps.
I ran an experiment on my own with my Garmin cycling computer and my Phone GPS(I used Strava). When I compared data it was different, and I tend to believe that Garmin GPS was far more accurate. So in my opinion cell phone should be out of a picture.
Your double click technique might be inaccurate since gas pumps are not designed to fill you up your car to exactly same amount every time.
Why not just use a canister to fill in tank at first place then refill it same way at the end of experiment? 2 top offs are not going to run car.
If you really care to prove that Civic (or any other car) is only 7% inaccurate with its MPG computer (which is not that uncommon in the industry) why not use just a little more accurate science and equipment.
It would be nice if you guys would test it in econ mode and with it switched off. From my experience driving in and around Denver, my car got worse MPG in econ mode then in normal mode. BUT when I was at sea-level (Houston, TX) it would get better economy in econ mode. Also, I noticed that on my car with direct injection (which the civic also has) it would get much better fuel economy on premium fuel at ALTITUDE, enough to negate the added cost, while also improving engine response. Perhaps with a turbo it would be different, but it would be interesting to test.
Pro tip I think the EPA uses 65-70 MPH max as highway speed. It'd be interesting if you guys tried it at that speed, not out of practicality (because most of us peel down the interstate at 80-85 anyway) but for kicks.
It would be interesting if you incorporated the maintenance costs associated with each of these vehicles. Just the usual stuff like oil changes, suggested maintenance at X miles, etc... Add that up for driving 100K miles.
Should I hypermile my 2016 Forester XT or will it hurt the engine not being driven "the way it's supposed to"?
Hello TFL could you please do a 0-60 mph and real world mpg review of the Ford Focus 1.0 ecoboost AT, while test drive I saw 42.7 mpg at 60 mph. and felt reasonably powerful and way better than the Focus with 2.0 l engine
wow I've looked at the 2016 civic many times before didn't know it was a capless system for filling gas. I know it's a really small thing but, very nice still.
Seriously just for pointing it out im liking and subscribing lol
Not bad actually. I would suspect if it were running the summer blend gasoline at lower altitude and a bit warmer, it would hit 42mpg - especially at speeds closer to 60mph. I notice my average MPG drops about 5% in the winter time in Kansas City (a smidge over 1,000 feet) due to the temps and gasoline blend.
Can you do a mpg loop with the Cruze Diesel ? It gives 52 highway according to the EPA.
hi nathan.. nice review on civic. could u please do on new mazda 3. im using your method on mileage calculation. actual mileage give by petrol pump=15.6km/l but trip computer give 16km/l. im using Shell ron95, cruising highway at speed of 116km/h, testing distance 450KM. wheater=malaysia. tq in advance
Cars get the best MPG at around 50mph to 55mph. I wouldn't expect it to hit EPA numbers at 75mph. The fact that it even got 40 mpg for what is essentially a mid-size car (I know it's technically a sub compact) going at that speed is amazing. That's better than what my wife gets with her Fiat 500, and that thing is great on gas. My blue Civic Coupe Touring is currently being built at the factory so now we're going to have two very fuel efficient cars. It's nice to know that $40 will fill both of our cars from empty to full and last a little over a week based on how much we drive.
Very impressive
Saw my first 2016 civic on the road today, looks much better than any civic before it - probably still cheap and boring junk though. Can you please show the touring model's headlights at night?
The car looks good.
I have a 2015 Toyota Corolla S CVT. EPA says 38hwy I believe. I took a 7 hour 390 mile road trip this past summer all highway with some mixed traffic. The car said 46MPG average 70mph but when I calculated the mileage, it was 50mpg. This was in the August Texas heat.
not hard to believe, the s trim has a rear decklid spoiler too, right?
Yes, the deck lid spoiler, paddle shifters, and special wheels. Same ones Honda uses on I think the '13/14 Civic
CO is not a good sample, statistically speaking...
so how well this do on the street. I'm deciding between the Mazda 3 and the civic. I have a light foot since I don't like spending money on gas XD
Is there like, a mod out there that would increased the mpg on the Civic 1.5 turbo engine? Perhaps a custom computer/chip tuned at a tuner shop of sorts. My Civic is always on ECO mode, but I need better mpg.
Yall should do some error analysis to help you realize the difference between the 75 mph speedometer reading in the car, and the 74 mph reading from your GPS isn't statistically significant. It's well within the uncertainty of the measurement systems you're using.
Was this test done in "ECO" mode?
2018 Cruze diesel sedan 9spd test needed!
So you did 75 going north on I25 and stopped for gas in Cheyanne Wy. The number is low because from Fort Collins to Cheyenne is about 1000ft of elevation gain. And your normally fighting a head wind.
Well, this was a 100 mile loop on I-76 to Fort Morgan and back. We take off and come back to the same fuel station.
+Bob Edwards Bro, it's a loop - if they go 1000 feet uphill in one direction, then they go 1000 feet downhill when they come back in the other direction. So it all evens out.
The main issue I see is the use of cruise control. Cruise control reduces mpg potential because it does not maintain a steady engine speed. If instead he used his own foot and kept it steady, he'd probably get 47 mpg.
The car computer mpg is consistent with my 09 fit, it reads 4 mpg higher than actual.
Can everyone calculate for instance: 40mpg to liter per 100km?
I have seen 40mpg with a 2012 Honda Civic at sea level. Your numbers sound right for above sea level. What speed does the government use for testing?
Could the calibration of the petrol pump to blame? Also, the vehicle is still new - engine hasn't worn in yet. Thanks for the review. It's interesting.
Cold air = denser air = more wind resistance. Full tank = more weight = lower mpg vs. the last gallon in the tank. More people in the car = more weight, 75mph vs. 65 mph, etc. All of those things can alter mpg at the margins.
The EPA number is really a way to compare across cars more than a guarantee of what you'll get under all conditions.
Honestly, it is pretty amazing that a car that large and well-appointed can get about 40 mpg at 75mph. Cars have really come a long way in the last ten years.
I have a few issues with your results . 1- you're @ a mile above sea level 2- did you check air pressure @ all 4 corners 3- Extra weight / Passenger & equipment 4- was you're test car fully broken in 5- the temperature & the the amount of traffic @ the time of testing 6- the level of the incline you were driving on . 7- The fact that you you drove away from the gas station & onto the highway in low gear & for how long I'm sure had a lot to do with you're end result.
I've noticed honda speedometers are one of the most accurate.. In my BMW its 5mph out@80mph my gps says 75mph..cant remember what car but another car I owned was 8mph out @80mph
Remember it's way above sea level.... So that's why it was 40mpg not 42+. Typically cars perform slightly different based on speed as well 50-85mph can make a difference. Wind resistance as well.
What gas grade did you use 87 , 91 . Does it make a difference in turbo 1.5
That is certainly within a reasonable range of the rating, especially considering the altitude difference, etc...
The computer readout almost always seems off to some degree, which is expected. I have a 2015 Focus SE that tells me it's getting 35 mpg but my math makes it closer to 36.5. Also, my average commute is very hilly. I've never gotten the 40 mpg its rated at.
You really need to run a whole tank to get an accurate reading... Different pumps top off differently... With such a small sample size that extra .1 or .2 makes a huge diff
that's exactly what my 2016 CT200h FSport gets after a similar 100 mph drive at 75mph. 38-39mpg
I meant 100 mile drive
Lambs think this test should be down at sea level. Most of America has a lower elevation than Colorado.
This seems about right. My 2013 Subaru BRZ pulls off about 40 mpg at around 70 mph. Being heavier and less aerodynamic, but with more technology and longer gears should put the new Honda Civic right where it is in terms of efficiency.
I got 48 mpg in my 2015 Vw Jetta S at 65 mpg on a Sunday morning in the 405 freeway I was shocked
I have a 2011 civic sedan, has anyone done that 30 second top off without over fill?
Currently getting about 50mpg at 65mph on the highway with my 2016 Civic coupe. Keep in mind I'm from South Florida which is at sea level, not in Colorado where it's a mile above sea level.
I live in PA and I get no where near the MPG as advertised (for city milage that is) Honda advertises 31MPG for city. But I would be lucky if I even get 25 in the city. So is sea level effecting this at all?
i drive 2014 civic with a cvt and in real world 60 degree I average 45 driving at posted speed of 65. i am not sure of sea-level though. Key is to accelerate gradually and drive in a speed of 60s
Highway MPG is not the most important figure for most drivers. City MPG is what really counts. Many vehicles can post good numbers on a highway going a constant speed on relatively flat roads in good conditions. City MPG is the real deal.
I bet if you do the trip on a different day the mpg will be different. I can get from 46-51 mpg over a distance of over 30 miles going the same speed yet different mpg. you actually get better mpg when other cars are on the road...
I'm curious what octane gas the 1.5 turbo eats. Does Honda say you need 91 octane to extract all 174hp?
This is the thing that catches all Ford Ecoboost owners pants down; they put in 87 octane & get terrible MPGs because the Ecoboost motors all recommend 91 for max performance & mileage.
haha,,,, IT'S fuking real world testing man!!!! TFLCAR.com baby
Hello! They never said it would get 42 at 75 MPH. Don't they test at 55?
The reason you didn't match the EPA of 42 is because they do not test at 75 mph . They probably test at something more like 60 mph which is more of a reasonable pace closer to speed limits.
Don't you guys think the altitude made a difference? I'm using EPA is under ideal conditions and at sea level?
+Neezy Ko Yes and when there's less atmospheric pressure the turbo needs to do more work to keep that intake pressure a constant. That means it uses a little extra fuel to turn the lower ambient pressure into the same intake pressure.
+hung huge That's only true if the turbo is sized wrong. At 5000ft the turbo should still be able to reach the boost that the computer wants. But that besides the point as in cruise like they were doing, there is almost no boost being generated.
Stuka87
You're missing the point. The turbo won't have any trouble making enough boost. You have to understand the engine will always aim for the same intake pressure and air/fuel mixture. With more altitude there is less atmospheric pressure so the turbo compensates for that to make the same intake pressure. That requires energy (the turbo doesn't push pressure for free) so it will need to spin a little faster which requires a little more exhaust gas to do. That in turn requires a slightly bigger bang than would normally be needed for the same intake pressure so more fuel is used.
Also the air at high altitude is less dense. While aiming for the ideal o2 level (remember the air/fuel mix?) it will need either less fuel or more air volume to make the same mix. Since we know it needs a bigger bang to make the same intake pressure it can't use less fuel so has to use slightly more air - which means the turbo pushing slightly more boost again which requires a bigger bang and so on.
We're talking minor changes but over this test it looks about correct against the official figures which would be done at sea level or there about - which means more ambient pressure and density - which makes the engines job of converting fuel easier.
Neezy Ko
So you think exhaust pressure is made anyway by accident and that's enough to make positive boost on a modern engine? One of the very basic principles of energy transfer is you don't get anything for nothing. Infact it's also one of the laws of physics - something even small turbo's are yet to overcome.
The points you're still missing are
1. Higher up there is less air going into the engine of it's own accord due to less density/pressure.
2. to make the same power the engine therefore needs to do more work.
3. barometric pressure is effectively free supercharging. More of it (at lower altitude) means less work is required to make the same power since less work is required to make the same intake pressure.
I always suspected that those onboard computer result were optimistic...
I generally find my cars get the best mileage at high altitudes due to the engine having less vacuum and air resistance due to thin air.
Tfl Car, Please do a comparison between this Honda Civic vs 2016 Toyota Corolla
+Andy Zhang if not Toyota, then Nissan might beat Honda.
CNET just tested the 2016 Toyota Corolla S. It was not a favorable review. Some Nissan vehicles Bluetooth allow streaming, but, not talking. Other Nissan vehicles are opposite. The Nissan CVT's are horrible. I have not driven a Honda or Subaru CVT.
+Tech Earth I would pick the Corolla S over the Civic personally.
+Andy Zhang lol I am not joking and I don't have to explain to anyone. It is my personal choice. The Corolla will still be one of the best selling compacts in 2016 no matter how good the Civic is. Everyone has their own preference. Not everyone like the styling/looks of the Civic, or someone wants a stick that is not a base model, and price, etc.
+Car Reviews Major redesign in 2017? Where did you hear that from?
There really must be something wrong with my model... My New 2018 Honda Civic EX Model (Just got it a week ago) is getting only 22 city, hardly any higher highway, even though its supposed to get 31 city 41 highway and 35 combined. Now before anyone comes after me and accused me of driving like a crazy teenager (I am a teenager actually), I have been making sure the keep the RPM low, keep the Fuel economy indicator light on green (not on white indicating higher use of gas), using cruise control settings as much as possible, AND keeping it 100% of the time in eco mode. There has to be something wrong with my model, there is no way a new 2018 civic EX sedan should be getting such bad mileage, even if someone is driving in a fun manner (higher RPM, flooring, driving fast, etc), not to mention the fuel effective and fuel efficient way I've been driving. Should I take my car back to the dealership?
40 MPG at 75 MPH isn't bad at all! I wonder with a turbo on borad if putting 91/93 octane in there would make a difference (hint hint @tflcar)
i have a grand marquis. ....i get 1 mpg combined