2012 Honda Civic Hybrid achieves 68.7mpg in HybridCars testing

While many of us here feel the same way, many other American consumers don't agree.

All these have EPA Combined of 33. I see that as a huge gap behind HCH's 44.

If you don't agree, then can others argue that Prius's 48 Highway number only 'barely exceeds' the Cruze Eco's 42 Highway?

Passat diesel is 35 Combined. Still quite a gap.

For drivers who prefer the feel of Honda, or sedans, or don't want something that screams 'HYBRID!' (which is part of the reason I took so long to get a hybrid), and don't need a midsize, HCH may be a good choice.

 

Oh dear, sorry to have jumped on your boo-boo like that. I was going for the highway mpg.

Smart For Two (not really a car, I know, and it is a coupe, so the comparison is waaaaaaaaaay off from a sedan): 33/41 mpg

Ford Fiesta SFE: 29/40 mpg

Hyundai Elantra: 29/40 mpg (non-hybrid)

Chev Cruze Eco: 28/42 mpg

2012 Passat Diesel: 43 highway.

For goodness sakes, the 1987 CRX got 42/51 mpg. Still, Honda has proved over and over it can't do hybrids (pulled the Accord, the Insight battery debacle, etc). Maybe this stunner will bring them around. It is a sedan, after all. Pooey to the v, C, CT 200h and others. Pooey I tell's ya.

:hand:

 

Also, I don't buy a car for what others might think about it. I never have. I guess I don't need to please others with my choice of transportation. Call me crazy.

:crazy:

Actually, I did buy a 2004 Solara since my wife didn't want to take a trip in my VW. So I was wrong there. They were both coupes, btw.

 

Obviously, you must admit that your assessment of worth varies from person to person correct?

Let me put it this way: If my extensive experience in the Prius (2G + 3G) and HCH is of any value is that depending on the person and needs, a sedan form factor still has virtues a hatchback cannot always match.

So far, in the HCH's favor you have the benefits of a more rigid body, less interior trim chatter - rather dramatic difference under sub zero temps - and the very noticeable presence of a fully independent rear suspension. Obviously, these are just two of the benefits and despite receiving almost universal agreement from those who share my experience, I will at least concede it remains a highly subjective topic. I suppose you can agree with me on this?

Lastly, the 51 MPG often attributed to the CRX of the 1980's is based on pre-2008 EPA ratings. Furthermore, only the HF model owned the rating while the volume seller trims did not. If I recall correctly, the HF model was indeed frugal but not as agile and performing as the DX or Si trims.

Cheers;


MSantos

 

The adjusted CRX fuel economy ratings are up on fueleconomy.gov.
Here's the city/combined/highway.
HF federal 40/43/48
HF Carb 37/41/46
non HF automatic 24/26/29

So, if you could drive a stick, don't need a rear seat, and are fine with just a seatbelt for safety features, you can have a car that might meet the new hybrid Civic's rating. Maybe even beat it in use, but the Civic will still be safer and more usable.

 

Didn't we just have a discussion about how the now-heavily advertised highway mpgs with claims of 'hybrid-like' fuel economy from conventional cars, are very misleading for most consumers?

 

Nevermind the creature comforts and performance. In a nutshell those old models are tin cans with outdated performance, terrible emissions and a severe lack of modern comfort features. If all you care about is price and MPG then they are not a bad deal. lol

 

Since the vast majority of consumers drive a combination of city and highway, ignoring the glaring fact that those cars you mentioned achieve pretty poor city mileage is not a good idea.