I just went to the Honda Civic forum out of curiosity and was looking at the posted MPG's people were posting. Some had "my car gets 41in the city-50mpg on the highway" and others were saying things like "wow mine gets about 25-26 in the city and around 32-33 on the highway." Any thoughts on this? Keep in mind the cars were within 2-3 years of one another in terms of age and none were hybrids.

Probably stupid to even bring it up but it seems to me that a lot of people are over inflating their numbers to impress while others are within the real limits of the car.

I am really interested in this so if there are any Honda Civic owners out there tell me what you think. With some of the numbers I was reading they are not really off of what a Malibu gets.
If you are a Civic and Malibu owner tell me what you see as the differences between the two good and bad.

I think you are right that people are inflating their numbers. If you go to the Honda Website or even the Chevy website you can do a side by side comparision and that would give you actual numbers to compare (although they will be EPA numbers at least you know they are all being measured the same.)

Possibly inflating. But you have to remember that we all drive differently, live in different areas, deal with different traffic, have different weather conditions, etc. As a good example, I have yet to get under 25 mpg from my 08 LTZ, with a high of just over 32. I've seen reports of others hitting 33, and *lots* of people in the upper teens to low 20's. So the variation between different drivers' experiences can be drastic and still not be 'made up'.

The only non hybrid Civics getting actual 45+ mpgs are the early 90s Civic VX models. My wife owned for a long time and I hated driving it. Rattled, retarded squirrel for a motor, lots of wind noise, handled like a school bus, not comfortable but it did get high 40s on the highway.

Fuel economy depends on too many things for the estimates to be accurate. The high MPG civics may be driven solely on the highway using cruise control all the way, the lower MPG civics may be driven in the city.

I understand that there will be differences but 20-30 mpg difference with the same car?? If so then there is a serious problem with the car and driver. They must be driving it 90 to nothing non-stop!!

50 MPG in a civic is pure and utter BS. The most you can ever get is around 40. Unless you're driving on the highways at 45 MPH, taking a full minute to accelerate from stops, driving with no A/C...

50 MPG in a civic is pure and utter BS. The most you can ever get is around 40. Unless you're driving on the highways at 45 MPH, taking a full minute to accelerate from stops, driving with no A/C...

our old 1992 Honda Civic HB VX would get 50mpg on the highway but only if you drove like you said ~ slow acceleration, maintain 55mph and no A/C. Check it out on Fueleconomy.gov, its what it is rated at.

If Honda could get this kind of fuel economy in '92, why can't they get 60mpg in today's cars?

2001FZ1 my sentiments exactly. Why can't they do that now? Hybrids are pulling in that but at an accelerated price and other issues attached. Fenwick you hit the nail on the head with the type of driving you would have to do. Would be interesting to see what the Malibu would get on a straight flat highway doing 55 and no AC!!

By 2015 it will be interesting to see what the car industry has planned and what MPG we will be able to get without cheap interiors and total lack of power and fun to drive. I think it is on it's way but it will take time. The federal mandates of MPG by that date will force everyone to do better and that is a good thing for all.

I'm not a big fan of CAFE restrictions. Yeah, it ups fuel economy, but it really kills off a lot of good cars. While it forces automakers to work on fuel efficiency, it also forces them to cancel projects that may have appealed to a lot of people like the RWD Impala.

And yes, awesome cars with good fuel economy are indeed on their way. 2010 Chevy Cruze, 1.4L Turbocharged I-4, over 40 MPG with an absolutely stunning interior. Base price starting at a little over the current Cobalt.

There are two main factors at work that have kept cars from improving in fuel economy since the 70's. The first is safety, and the second is emissions.

In the name of safety automakers have been forced (yep, read it right: forced, by the government and media pressure) to include lots more safety built into every vehicle. This ranges from things like multiple airbags in the vehicle, to higher strength steel, side beams in the doors, etc. It would be possible to strengthen the chassis and not gain much if any weight, but the materials needed cost more, and that cost has to be paid somehow (== even higher purchase prices), so most manufacturers split the difference, using such materials judiciousy, or on higher end vehicles. The extra mass requires more power to achieve similar performance numbers to lower weight vehicles with less power. This in turn means that even if an engine gets more efficient, we end up asking it to use more fuel to move the car, in the end breaking even overall.

As far as emissions go, vehicles didn't used to have to have the level of emissions controls on them that they do today. As the emissions requirements get more stringent, more and more controls are placed on the engine (many done electronically today), reducing overall performance and economy in the process. An example is the 'lean burn' technology which would allow the vehicle to consume the least fuel. I don't know a lot of specifics behind it, but I did read a bit about it on some GM truck forums where folks were getting tunes for more power / economy. The gist of the explanation was that the tuning increased the amount of time that the ECU allowed the truck to run lean, but that this also increased emissions. I would imagine that some of the controls add weight to the vehicle too, exacerbating the mass problem.

A third, less criticized, but still valid issue is the weight gain caused by customer demand- things like power windows, locks, sunroofs, skylights, silent interiors, electronic gewgaws to make coffee, etc. These things don't come free, either.

Taken all in all, I'm pretty impressed that fuel economy has risen as much as it has when compared to the cars made years ago. Given all the other advances made in our cars, to see them accelerating so much faster, being larger, more comfortable, and meeting today's safety and emissions standards, it's fairly amazing that they still return the fuel economy numbers that they do. And when you drive extra frugally (think: hypermiler-style) they show what's really possible. I've adoped some of those strategies, though not nearly all (some seem rude to other drivers, others are a bit too big an impact on my own comfort), and seen good results. That's how my 07 Trailblazer straight six returns 21 mpg routinely when I drive it, and how my 08 'bu normally gets between 28 and 31 mpg.

Anyway, I'd be thankful for what you have now. The alternative if you really want to save money is to buy a few-year-old basic econocar, which lacked all the 'extras' our modern cars have now, and which wasn't saddled by EPA restrictions and NHTSA safety rules running up weight / down fuel economy / hp. It's a valid alternative, and in the end cheaper than buying a new car anyway. (Read a recent Edmunds' rant for a view on this taken to the extreme, lol).

Anyway, I'd be thankful for what you have now. The alternative if you really want to save money is to buy a few-year-old basic econocar, which lacked all the 'extras' our modern cars have now, and which wasn't saddled by EPA restrictions and NHTSA safety rules running up weight / down fuel economy / hp. It's a valid alternative, and in the end cheaper than buying a new car anyway. (Read a recent Edmunds' rant for a view on this taken to the extreme, lol).

I agree with everything you said and it was very well stated. The above is true and why I did not go with the ultra "econocar" because at this point I do feel safer in what I drive and I would, in my mind, be giving that up with some cars (especially the older ones). The other factor you pointed out is that I do like the "extras" and feel I would be giving a lot of that up. Sitting in the seats of some of the Toyotas and Hondas can be tiring (at least to me) and for now I want comfort with better MPG.

Having said all of that I have been very pleased with my new Malibu and have to admit that I am a little surprised by this. I have driven almost every type of car out there and by many different automakers and was hesitant at first when considering the Chevy. My hesitation went away when I sat in the car and compared them to the two others I was considering. The quality, drive, interior and not to mention the quiet feel to the car still make me happy. Yes Chevrolet has had problems in the past but they did a great job with this car. This is how all the cars should be. Switching the mindset of the general public is going to be difficult but it can be done with good product. Sorry for getting off topic :o