mpg 1997 civic

I was looking at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and it rates my vehicle at 37 (city) and 40 (hwy). With the way I drive I have never been real close to that. Never, not even when I first bought the vehicle. I can
get a combined 35-37 pretty easily with my drving style. What is the real mpg for my vehicle and how do they come up with the high numbers posted on that web site. I check my 2003 3L v6 camery on that site and they are low on the city and just right on the hwy. what gives, anyone with a better place to look?
Thanks
john http://johntaylor.somee.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Your right foot.
runsrealfast wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ecarecar wrote:

Yeah coming from Cali to Idaho its hard for me not to want to punch it down to the floor board, people here think I'm nuts but I fit in great in Sacramento. I'm actually pretty good in the city its the highway where i'm bad.
john
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I had the opposite experience. Both my 1990 and 2004 got a couple mpg better than the EPA rating. (Except in winter with that weak ethonal.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
rick++ wrote:

Although EPA is alleged to overestimate mileage for many cars, for some reason they sometimes underestimate it for Hondas (and Toyotas). EPA rated my '93 Accord automatic at 28mpg on the highway, but I usually get 32-34mpg under ideal conditions. In fact, I took a 450-mile road trip a couple weekends ago and the car averaged 33mpg. I'm not an aggressive driver but I'm not a slowpoke either; I usually drive 5-10 mph above the speed limit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
runsrealfast wrote:

Which trim level do you have? The numbers you are saying sound a little high for the EPA estimate unless you have the HX. For my 97 EX (4 cyl, 1.6, Manual (5 sp) , Regular Gasoline, VTEC (FFS) on their list) the numbers listed (30/36) match up pretty well with the ~35mpg I get with mostly highway driving.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
runsrealfast wrote:

It all depends! The only 'real' MPG is the one you are getting. :)
As I understand it, all those EPA estimates are done in a lab, and are based on exhaust carbon mass and other data. Apparently their modelling is not always so accurate.... EPA says 22/27 for me, I'm getting 32+/35+. I must drive like my dead-and-buried granny; all my vehicles have exceeded EPA by a fair margin, even a guzzling Cherokee.
Freeway mileage is greatly dependent on speed. FWIW, my Accord ('92, 2.2L, 5-spd) gets 36~38 when tootling along two lane highways at 50~55, but only 30~31 on the superslab at around 75. (These numbers don't reflect many refils, so are ballpark only.) Your Civic, being smaller, will probably be less sensitive to aero drag (compared with other losses) and may have a faster 'sweet spot.' Still, most any vehicle will do better when driven at somewhat reduced freeway speeds.
City driving is about anticipating red lights/stop signs and gliding/coasting as much as is practical. Anytime you use the brake, you are wasting gas, and dissipated energy goes up with the square of the speed. If you forsee a stop ahead, gently ease off early, as much as following traffic will tolerate. Braking to a stop from 40 wastes nearly twice the energy as from 30.
-Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.