|
|
|
|
 |
danielgr
 |
|
Well... I couldn't really believe it myself, but so far the onboard computer seems to be accurate to the mililiter so ... there you go:
- Going to work : 24.9 km/L = 58.5 mpg
- Back from work : 25.9km/L = 61L mpg
The fact is I always go to work with the company bus but today I had to do a few things at home so I took the Z.
About the conditions of such performance:
- My commute:
* 20km (go, and another 20km back) ; 12.5 miles
* leaving from sea level and arriving at sea level on a hily road with a couple of big hills at both ends.
* speed around 60kmph (37 mph) following traffic on single lane roads (limit is 40kmph),
* a couple of redlights and a couple of stop signs, crossing two mini-villages (reduced speed but no lights)
- Outside temperature: 23ºC (73ºF); windows opened and no air conditioning
The only noticeable differences I could tell from both trips is that going to work:
- I took both traffic lights red (only one on the way back)
- I overtook in sport mode a couple of buses that were driving at 40.
PS: Now I wonder what kind of mileage could I get changing the sport Advan A10 tires for something more eco-friendly...
|
Longhorn
|
|
|
What does that translate too in US gallons?
|
danielgr
|
|
Longhorn wrote:
What does that translate too in US gallons?
|
Did I mess with something? I thought I translated all metric units to US stuff...
|
cyisalwayshungry
|
|
danielgr wrote:
Longhorn wrote:
What does that translate too in US gallons?
|
Did I mess with something? I thought I translated all metric units to US stuff...
|
You didn't miss a thing. For redundant clarification:
25.9 km/L = 60.9 mpg
|
PGH
|
|
|
I recently got 41mpg with my 98 civic LX 4 door with 127k on the clock averaging 72 mph on a 300 mile round trip. All highway with 2 people on board.
|
80honda
|
|
danielgr wrote:
Well... I couldn't really believe it myself, but so far the onboard computer seems to be accurate to the mililiter so ... there you go:
- Going to work : 24.9 km/L = 58.5 mpg
- Back from work : 25.9km/L = 61L mpg
The fact is I always go to work with the company bus but today I had to do a few things at home so I took the Z.
About the conditions of such performance:
- My commute:
* 20km (go, and another 20km back) ; 12.5 miles
* leaving from sea level and arriving at sea level on a hily road with a couple of big hills at both ends.
* speed around 60kmph (37 mph) following traffic on single lane roads (limit is 40kmph),
* a couple of redlights and a couple of stop signs, crossing two mini-villages (reduced speed but no lights)
- Outside temperature: 23ºC (73ºF); windows opened and no air conditioning
The only noticeable differences I could tell from both trips is that going to work:
- I took both traffic lights red (only one on the way back)
- I overtook in sport mode a couple of buses that were driving at 40.
PS: Now I wonder what kind of mileage could I get changing the sport Advan A10 tires for something more eco-friendly...
|
Excellent, that's three times what I get.
|
Longhorn
|
|
danielgr wrote:
Longhorn wrote:
What does that translate too in US gallons?
|
Did I mess with something? I thought I translated all metric units to US stuff...
|
When the Insight debutted in Japan it was stated as getting 60+ mpg, then we were told that was in Japan Imperial gallons. It would stand to reason you bought the car in Japan,it would use the Japan measuring system to calculate mpgs.
With that said, if you are stating that's in US gallons, then 61 mpg is freaking impressive. Congrats.
|
Potenza
|
|
danielgr wrote:
PS: Now I wonder what kind of mileage could I get changing the sport Advan A10 tires for something more eco-friendly...
|
|
danielgr
|
|
PGH wrote:
I recently got 41mpg with my 98 civic LX 4 door with 127k on the clock averaging 72 mph on a 300 mile round trip. All highway with 2 people on board.
|
You also get 37mpg on an Outback (link) so I'm not that surprised you can get such mileage on the Civic (still, remember... the pictures PGH, the pictures...).
That said 42mpg on a 98 Civic LX doesn't sound unbelievable to me (after all it was rated 37mpg on the HW). Also, measuring at the pump on one fill-up for 300 miles can easily get you up or down 3 mpgs depending on how you do it (when talking about high mileage).
Finally, the 98 Civic LX:
- had 106hp@6200rpm and 103lb-ft @4300 rpm
- met practically no emissions standards by nowadays levels.
- was a death trap in case of crash
- weigthed less than 2390 lb and had zero comfort/convenience features.
Do we still have to go through this every time anyone posts something about the CR-Z?
Bottom line; do you thought the CR-Z could get such a good mileage? I sure didn't expect it; Everyday I'm happier with it ! And I'm glad you still enjoy your 98 Civic; we are obviously two happy guys !
PS: Would love you to get your cars monitored and added to TOV's real world FE database...
|
danielgr
|
|
Longhorn wrote:
danielgr wrote:
Longhorn wrote:
What does that translate too in US gallons?
|
Did I mess with something? I thought I translated all metric units to US stuff... |
With that said, if you are stating that's in US gallons, then 61 mpg is freaking impressive. Congrats. |
The Insight is indeed rated between 62 and 70 US mpg in Japan., according to the Japanese 10-15 mode FE standard. On the same standard the MT CR-Z is rated at 53 mpg.
I believe you are mixing "FE standards" with units.
The Japanese 10-15 mode standard is a very different driving cycle from EPA's, which is why if you simply translate the Japanese rating's units you get numbers that seem overly optimistic when compared with what you are used to.
That said, when talking about the fuel your car uses in the real world (not about how much fuel it uses on a given test), it's only a matter of units. Being able to travel 25.9 km with 1L of gasoline is exactly the same thing as being able to travel 60.9 miles with one US gallon of gasoline.
Hope that helped.
|
danielgr
|
|
Potenza wrote:
danielgr wrote:
PS: Now I wonder what kind of mileage could I get changing the sport Advan A10 tires for something more eco-friendly...
|
|
Seriously thinking about the gripless AAA Ecopia EP100S for our Fit though (but need a better compromise for the CR-Z in any case).
|
Blue_Sky_surfer
|
|
danielgr wrote:
- Going to work : 24.9 km/L = 58.5 mpg
- Back from work : 25.9km/L = 61L mpg
|
[Hand claps]
|
CR-V9
|
|
I don't believe you. You, Honda propaganda machine.
cyisalwayshungry wrote:
danielgr wrote:
Longhorn wrote:
What does that translate too in US gallons?
|
Did I mess with something? I thought I translated all metric units to US stuff...
|
You didn't miss a thing. For redundant clarification:
25.9 km/L = 60.9 mpg
|
Ah ha ! 61mpg ?
Stretching a fact a bit here ?
So next time when you get 61.1mpg, are you going to say "I've got almost 70mpg !" ?
You, a Honda propagandist.
|
danielgr
|
|
CR-V9 wrote:
I don't believe you. You, Honda propaganda machine.
cyisalwayshungry wrote:
danielgr wrote:
Longhorn wrote:
What does that translate too in US gallons?
|
Did I mess with something? I thought I translated all metric units to US stuff...
|
You didn't miss a thing. For redundant clarification:
25.9 km/L = 60.9 mpg
|
Ah ha ! 61mpg ?
Stretching a fact a bit here ?
So next time when you get 61.1mpg, are you going to say "I've got almost 70mpg !" ?
You, a Honda propagandist.
|
Should have wrote :
- 25.9 km/L = 60.9205771 mpg
And yet even more, since I don't know how does Honda round their FE figures I should have put:
- Something between 25.85 to 25.99 km/L, which is between 60.8029698 mpg and 61.1322702 mpg
My sincere aplogies for having mislead people not being able to do an easy unit conversion on their own ... (which btw you can do at any internet browser search bar by simply writing 25.9km/L in mpg at google...)
|
Midi_Amp
|
|
danielgr wrote:
CR-V9 wrote:
I don't believe you. You, Honda propaganda machine.
cyisalwayshungry wrote:
danielgr wrote:
Longhorn wrote:
What does that translate too in US gallons?
|
Did I mess with something? I thought I translated all metric units to US stuff...
|
You didn't miss a thing. For redundant clarification:
25.9 km/L = 60.9 mpg
|
Ah ha ! 61mpg ?
Stretching a fact a bit here ?
So next time when you get 61.1mpg, are you going to say "I've got almost 70mpg !" ?
You, a Honda propagandist.
|
Should have wrote :
- 25.9 km/L = 60.9205771 mpg
And yet even more, since I don't know how does Honda round their FE figures I should have put:
- Something between 25.85 to 25.99 km/L, which is between 60.8029698 mpg and 61.1322702 mpg
My sincere aplogies for having mislead people not being able to do an easy unit conversion on their own ... (which btw you can do at any internet browser search bar by simply writing 25.9km/L in mpg at google...)
|
Respect... If I were you Daniel, I would have take some heavy virtual butt kicking action against that much of jeering. If somebody can't take a hint from pictures, well, you really don't have to hear from em period.
Basically, your driving style and condition manages to trounce Honda own estimate of 20,6 Km/L (or 48,4542042 miles per gallon if somebody get antsy again). Just curious, how much MPG hit if you're using the A/C... 23ºC is cool enough, but let's say you're doing a simulation for the summers ahead :) just wondering how the A/C would behave.
|
danielgr
|
|
Midi_Amp wrote:
Basically, your driving style and condition manages to trounce Honda own estimate of 20,6 Km/L (or 48,4542042 miles per gallon if somebody get antsy again). Just curious, how much MPG hit if you're using the A/C... 23ºC is cool enough, but let's say you're doing a simulation for the summers ahead :) just wondering how the A/C would behave.
|
You can always check all my cumulated mileage and info on a per-tank basis by clicking on any of the icons of TOV's real world FE database (link). I write quite a lot of info including A/C use and other stuff.
You can also see some of my first long highway trips on a previous thread on TOV (link).
|
Colin
|
|
|
Daniel, FWIW, I believe there was sarcasm in CRs post. That is an amazing number for a car rated in the mid-30s. Maybe your drive in/was downhill ... in both directions? (more attempts at humor)
|
PGH
|
|
danielgr wrote:
PGH wrote:
I recently got 41mpg with my 98 civic LX 4 door with 127k on the clock averaging 72 mph on a 300 mile round trip. All highway with 2 people on board.
|
You also get 37mpg on an Outback (link) so I'm not that surprised you can get such mileage on the Civic (still, remember... the pictures PGH, the pictures...).
That said 42mpg on a 98 Civic LX doesn't sound unbelievable to me (after all it was rated 37mpg on the HW). Also, measuring at the pump on one fill-up for 300 miles can easily get you up or down 3 mpgs depending on how you do it (when talking about high mileage).
Finally, the 98 Civic LX:
- had 106hp@6200rpm and 103lb-ft @4300 rpm
- met practically no emissions standards by nowadays levels.
- was a death trap in case of crash
- weigthed less than 2390 lb and had zero comfort/convenience features.
Do we still have to go through this every time anyone posts something about the CR-Z?
Bottom line; do you thought the CR-Z could get such a good mileage? I sure didn't expect it; Everyday I'm happier with it ! And I'm glad you still enjoy your 98 Civic; we are obviously two happy guys !
PS: Would love you to get your cars monitored and added to TOV's real world FE database...
|
I'm trying to follow in my mentors(80 honda) footsteps LOL........
In 1998 my 98 Civic was a safe car and it is LEV rated. I find it comfortable. I will argue the fact that Honda was technically
superior back then compared to the offerings 13 years later.
I will also argue that a well engineered gasoline engine is a better choice than this IMA hybrid crap. I'm not cutting down the CR-Z ,but at the end of the day it's just a 2 door Insight in a pretty wrapper.
|
80honda
|
|
PGH wrote:
I'm trying to follow in my mentors(80 honda) footsteps LOL........
In 1998 my 98 Civic was a safe car and it is LEV rated. I find it comfortable. I will argue the fact that Honda was technically
superior back then compared to the offerings 13 years later.
I will also argue that a well engineered gasoline engine is a better choice than this IMA hybrid crap. I'm not cutting down the CR-Z ,but at the end of the day it's just a 2 door Insight in a pretty wrapper.
|
A pretty wrapped up 2-door Insight that gets 61mpg in his urban commute to work! Without that IMA(crap as some call it) I don't see any Honda getting anywhere near 61 mpg in a urban commute.
|
danielgr
|
|
PGH wrote:
danielgr wrote:
PGH wrote:
I recently got 41mpg with my 98 civic LX 4 door with 127k on the clock averaging 72 mph on a 300 mile round trip. All highway with 2 people on board.
|
You also get 37mpg on an Outback (link) so I'm not that surprised you can get such mileage on the Civic (still, remember... the pictures PGH, the pictures...).
That said 42mpg on a 98 Civic LX doesn't sound unbelievable to me (after all it was rated 37mpg on the HW). Also, measuring at the pump on one fill-up for 300 miles can easily get you up or down 3 mpgs depending on how you do it (when talking about high mileage).
Finally, the 98 Civic LX:
- had 106hp@6200rpm and 103lb-ft @4300 rpm
- met practically no emissions standards by nowadays levels.
- was a death trap in case of crash
- weigthed less than 2390 lb and had zero comfort/convenience features.
Do we still have to go through this every time anyone posts something about the CR-Z?
Bottom line; do you thought the CR-Z could get such a good mileage? I sure didn't expect it; Everyday I'm happier with it ! And I'm glad you still enjoy your 98 Civic; we are obviously two happy guys !
PS: Would love you to get your cars monitored and added to TOV's real world FE database...
|
In 1998 my 98 Civic was a safe car and it is LEV rated. I find it comfortable.
[bla bla bla ...] |
Just for fun:
- Here is how safe was your car (link), and that's with 10 years old standards (should it be tested by nowadays standards and I doubt it'll reach the first star...)
- LEV? You mean 1998 LEV... did you happen to read what I said... I'll let you enjoy finding yourself how would a 1998 LEV vehicle be rated today.
- I found my 125cc CBR pretty comfortable myself; yet I'm not dumb enough to keep on talking bullshit claiming I don't see how a Lexus LS is more comfortable / better featured than it.
Now be reasured, you can feel free to give your last word after this since I won't bother answering you again.
|
98EX4cyl
|
|
80honda wrote:
PGH wrote:
I'm trying to follow in my mentors(80 honda) footsteps LOL........
In 1998 my 98 Civic was a safe car and it is LEV rated. I find it comfortable. I will argue the fact that Honda was technically
superior back then compared to the offerings 13 years later.
I will also argue that a well engineered gasoline engine is a better choice than this IMA hybrid crap. I'm not cutting down the CR-Z ,but at the end of the day it's just a 2 door Insight in a pretty wrapper.
|
A pretty wrapped up 2-door Insight that gets 61mpg in his urban commute to work! Without that IMA(crap as some call it) I don't see any Honda getting anywhere near 61 mpg in a urban commute.
|
To clarify...this is hardly an 'Urban commute'. In 12.5 miles he only hits a couple of stop signs and lights on two lane roads. I hit 4 stop lights and 2 traffic lights in the first half mile leaving my house on my suburban commute. Sounds like you're in a rural area.
That said, closing the windows might improve your figures by improving aerodynamics. And yes eco tires would help but they may adversely affect emergency handling and traction so be careful, you have to find the right balance - read others reviews (tire rack, etc).
|
Longhorn
|
|
|
Daniel's 61 mpg is very impressive,even by hybrid standards. I would like to know from someone here in the states what fuel economy someone is getting in a CRZ on the highway at 65 or 70. With Daniel's type numbers the CRZ may be the original two seater Insight succesor than CRX successor.
|
98EX4cyl
|
|
daniel,
how many miles on the CR-Z?
have you even reached the break-in period?
I'm against comparing mpg figures until after the first oil change when you can really start to set a base for future mpg ratings.
A lot of N.A. Gen 8 Accord drivers were discouraged early on with mpg ratings. I went from per tank averages near 18 to 22-23 in my commute as I reached and hit my first oil change and its held there since.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
PGH wrote:
danielgr wrote:
PGH wrote:
I recently got 41mpg with my 98 civic LX 4 door with 127k on the clock averaging 72 mph on a 300 mile round trip. All highway with 2 people on board.
|
You also get 37mpg on an Outback (link) so I'm not that surprised you can get such mileage on the Civic (still, remember... the pictures PGH, the pictures...).
That said 42mpg on a 98 Civic LX doesn't sound unbelievable to me (after all it was rated 37mpg on the HW). Also, measuring at the pump on one fill-up for 300 miles can easily get you up or down 3 mpgs depending on how you do it (when talking about high mileage).
Finally, the 98 Civic LX:
- had 106hp@6200rpm and 103lb-ft @4300 rpm
- met practically no emissions standards by nowadays levels.
- was a death trap in case of crash
- weigthed less than 2390 lb and had zero comfort/convenience features.
Do we still have to go through this every time anyone posts something about the CR-Z?
Bottom line; do you thought the CR-Z could get such a good mileage? I sure didn't expect it; Everyday I'm happier with it ! And I'm glad you still enjoy your 98 Civic; we are obviously two happy guys !
PS: Would love you to get your cars monitored and added to TOV's real world FE database...
|
I'm trying to follow in my mentors(80 honda) footsteps LOL........
In 1998 my 98 Civic was a safe car and it is LEV rated. I find it comfortable. I will argue the fact that Honda was technically
superior back then compared to the offerings 13 years later.
I will also argue that a well engineered gasoline engine is a better choice than this IMA hybrid crap. I'm not cutting down the CR-Z ,but at the end of the day it's just a 2 door Insight in a pretty wrapper.
|
A hybrid engine is a well engineered gasoline engine. At least it contains one.
|
owequitit
|
|
PGH wrote:
danielgr wrote:
PGH wrote:
I recently got 41mpg with my 98 civic LX 4 door with 127k on the clock averaging 72 mph on a 300 mile round trip. All highway with 2 people on board.
|
You also get 37mpg on an Outback (link) so I'm not that surprised you can get such mileage on the Civic (still, remember... the pictures PGH, the pictures...).
That said 42mpg on a 98 Civic LX doesn't sound unbelievable to me (after all it was rated 37mpg on the HW). Also, measuring at the pump on one fill-up for 300 miles can easily get you up or down 3 mpgs depending on how you do it (when talking about high mileage).
Finally, the 98 Civic LX:
- had 106hp@6200rpm and 103lb-ft @4300 rpm
- met practically no emissions standards by nowadays levels.
- was a death trap in case of crash
- weigthed less than 2390 lb and had zero comfort/convenience features.
Do we still have to go through this every time anyone posts something about the CR-Z?
Bottom line; do you thought the CR-Z could get such a good mileage? I sure didn't expect it; Everyday I'm happier with it ! And I'm glad you still enjoy your 98 Civic; we are obviously two happy guys !
PS: Would love you to get your cars monitored and added to TOV's real world FE database...
|
I'm trying to follow in my mentors(80 honda) footsteps LOL........
In 1998 my 98 Civic was a safe car and it is LEV rated. I find it comfortable. I will argue the fact that Honda was technically
superior back then compared to the offerings 13 years later.
I will also argue that a well engineered gasoline engine is a better choice than this IMA hybrid crap. I'm not cutting down the CR-Z ,but at the end of the day it's just a 2 door Insight in a pretty wrapper.
|
Your arguement is easily torn down...
1)LEV is not LEV. There are multiple levels of performance, and IIRC the currently mandated level is Tier 2 Bin 5 which is quite a bit stricter than the original LEV standard from 1998.
2) As mentioned, the crash worthiness standards from 1998 do not apply today. A 5 star vehicle from that time frame would not meet todays standards with anywhere near the same rating. Of course, I am not a fan of the star rating either, because it doesn't tell the whole truth. Any car that meets a minimum threshold is rated the same as any car that exceeds that same threshold, so even 5 star rated cars are not necessarily equal. Of course, you can find detailed crash reports for nearly any car in the NHTSA's crash data database. I am sure that if you compare the CR-Z to the 1998 Civic LX, there is a large measureable difference in most of the crash data.
Of course, that also neglects the additional compatibility features of the CR-Z such as pedestrian safety, and ACE body structure, which helps your chances against a larger vehicle. Nobody cares about the differences in crash safety until they need them.
That isn't to say that I believe the 98 Civic is a death trap or doesn't provide a reasonable level of safety. I have seen Hondas involved in accidents that were quite older than your 1998 and still did a FANTASTIC job of protecting the occupants. However, to pretend the CR-Z hasn't moved forward is not accurate either.
3) While Daniel's commute is not expressly "urban", it is no more of a highway jaunt than what you claim for your Civic. The fact that it is returning nearly DOUBLE the mileage, while making more stops and accelerations is a pretty strong testament to the fact that it is, in fact, more efficient... I am not sure why you are so hellbent on trying to pretend that isn't the case. Maybe because it makes you insecure about your assumptions regarding IMA, and you don't want to admit that it isn't quite the failure of technology you want it to be.
The fact that it has tires similar in performance specs to a stock Civic LX's, and weighs more, is an even stronger indicator of an overall increase in efficiency. P.S. The CR-Z is most likely faster all around and is CERTAINLY more fun to drive with a better feature content, and IMO at least equal materials and build quality.
|
Blue_Sky_surfer
|
|
It's apparent that there's still confusion of the emission level of current and past standards, even among some 'enthusiasts'.
California emission standard (upto and including MY2003)
limit @50,000 miles - NMOG / CO / NOx / HCHO (g/mile)
LEV 0.075, 3.4, 0.2, 0.015
ULEV 0.040, 1.7, 0.2, 0.008
LEV 0.090, 4.2, 0.3, 0.018 (@100,000 miles)
ULEV 0.055, 2.1, 0.3, 0.011 (@100,000 miles)
California emission standard (MY2003-10)
LEV II 0.075, 3.4, 0.05, 0.015 (limit @50,000 miles)
LEV II 0.090, 4.2, 0.07, 0.018 (limit @120,000 miles)
SULEV 0.010, 1.0, 0.02, 0.004 (@120,000 miles)
PZEV 0.010, 1.0, 0.02, 0.004 (@150,000 miles)
It looks, compared with a relatively clean (at that time) 1998 LEV I vehicle, PZEV emits:
~90% less NMOG;
>75% less CO;
>90% less NOx;
>75% less HCHO.
(I'm comparing PZEV@150,000 miles with LEV I @100,000 miles.)
|
owequitit
|
|
owequitit wrote:
PGH wrote:
danielgr wrote:
PGH wrote:
I recently got 41mpg with my 98 civic LX 4 door with 127k on the clock averaging 72 mph on a 300 mile round trip. All highway with 2 people on board.
|
You also get 37mpg on an Outback (link) so I'm not that surprised you can get such mileage on the Civic (still, remember... the pictures PGH, the pictures...).
That said 42mpg on a 98 Civic LX doesn't sound unbelievable to me (after all it was rated 37mpg on the HW). Also, measuring at the pump on one fill-up for 300 miles can easily get you up or down 3 mpgs depending on how you do it (when talking about high mileage).
Finally, the 98 Civic LX:
- had 106hp@6200rpm and 103lb-ft @4300 rpm
- met practically no emissions standards by nowadays levels.
- was a death trap in case of crash
- weigthed less than 2390 lb and had zero comfort/convenience features.
Do we still have to go through this every time anyone posts something about the CR-Z?
Bottom line; do you thought the CR-Z could get such a good mileage? I sure didn't expect it; Everyday I'm happier with it ! And I'm glad you still enjoy your 98 Civic; we are obviously two happy guys !
PS: Would love you to get your cars monitored and added to TOV's real world FE database...
|
I'm trying to follow in my mentors(80 honda) footsteps LOL........
In 1998 my 98 Civic was a safe car and it is LEV rated. I find it comfortable. I will argue the fact that Honda was technically
superior back then compared to the offerings 13 years later.
I will also argue that a well engineered gasoline engine is a better choice than this IMA hybrid crap. I'm not cutting down the CR-Z ,but at the end of the day it's just a 2 door Insight in a pretty wrapper.
|
Your arguement is easily torn down...
1)LEV is not LEV. There are multiple levels of performance, and IIRC the currently mandated level is Tier 2 Bin 5 which is quite a bit stricter than the original LEV standard from 1998.
2) As mentioned, the crash worthiness standards from 1998 do not apply today. A 5 star vehicle from that time frame would not meet todays standards with anywhere near the same rating. Of course, I am not a fan of the star rating either, because it doesn't tell the whole truth. Any car that meets a minimum threshold is rated the same as any car that exceeds that same threshold, so even 5 star rated cars are not necessarily equal. Of course, you can find detailed crash reports for nearly any car in the NHTSA's crash data database. I am sure that if you compare the CR-Z to the 1998 Civic LX, there is a large measureable difference in most of the crash data.
Of course, that also neglects the additional compatibility features of the CR-Z such as pedestrian safety, and ACE body structure, which helps your chances against a larger vehicle. Nobody cares about the differences in crash safety until they need them.
That isn't to say that I believe the 98 Civic is a death trap or doesn't provide a reasonable level of safety. I have seen Hondas involved in accidents that were quite older than your 1998 and still did a FANTASTIC job of protecting the occupants. However, to pretend the CR-Z hasn't moved forward is not accurate either.
3) While Daniel's commute is not expressly "urban", it is no more of a highway jaunt than what you claim for your Civic. The fact that it is returning nearly DOUBLE the mileage, while making more stops and accelerations is a pretty strong testament to the fact that it is, in fact, more efficient... I am not sure why you are so hellbent on trying to pretend that isn't the case. Maybe because it makes you insecure about your assumptions regarding IMA, and you don't want to admit that it isn't quite the failure of technology you want it to be.
The fact that it has tires similar in performance specs to a stock Civic LX's, and weighs more, is an even stronger indicator of an overall increase in efficiency. P.S. The CR-Z is most likely faster all around and is CERTAINLY more fun to drive with a better feature content, and IMO at least equal materials and build quality.
|
P.S. Should have stated 50% not double.
|
intune
|
|
Longhorn wrote:
Daniel's 61 mpg is very impressive,even by hybrid standards. I would like to know from someone here in the states what fuel economy someone is getting in a CRZ on the highway at 65 or 70. With Daniel's type numbers the CRZ may be the original two seater Insight succesor than CRX successor.
|
Wayne Gerdes (of hypermiling fame) tested the CR-Z and got the following steady state numbers (i.e. no hypermiling techniques, cruise control engaged) in ECO mode, 55psi in the tires, and no A/C:
* 45 mph - 58 mpg
* 50 mph - 53 mpg
* 55 mph - 49 mpg
* 60 mph - 46 mpg
* 65 mph - 43 mpg
* 70 mph - 38 mpg
Here is the relevant post on cleanmpg.com, but I found the entire thread interesting concerning his review of the CR-Z.
Off topic from this CR-Z thread, but providing some context, here are Wayne's steady state numbers for a base 2011 6MT Sonata (tires were likely at 55psi as well). Here is the post I took the numbers from:
* 45 mph - 53.5 mpg
* 50 mph - 51.0 mpg
* 55 mph - 48.0 mpg
* 60 mph - 44.0 mpg
* 65 mph - 41.0 mpg
* 70 mph - 38.5 mpg
I think the CR-Z shows some great mpg numbers when driven with efficiency in mind. On the other hand, in sport mode, from all accounts it is a fun, entertaining drive. Sounds like a great Honda to me, although I still wish they had found a way to extend the torque curve another 1500rpm.
|
98EX4cyl
|
|
55 psi?????
WTF?
That exceeds max tire pressure ratings for most tires including those of the CR-Z.
|
Colin
|
|
Yeah, that caught my eye as well. We used to add a lot of air when we autocrossed, obviously for different reasons.
I spent time reading the whole thread and it was very interesting. They used a lot of abbreviations that took some time to get the hang of and man, that site is BUSY looking! Blech!
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
