Archives

Well i am trying to get the most out of my 2000 civic cx and well i just got 508 miles out of my 14 gal tank. :mad:
I have my tires up to 52psi and have my car well stripped out. I have a carbon kevlar hood which weighs next to nothing and i drive very conservatively. For example when i accelerate 1st gear to about 15mph, 2nd to 20, 3rd to about 25, 4th to 30 5th, 35-40. Not sure if that is a good way to do it or not. I have read alot on the cite but i really don't understand most of it. I coast in neutral for as long as possible and if i have huge hill or know that i will have more then say 30seconds i turn the car off. I don't have a tach so im not sure about that. I was on getting the scangauge II soon but could use some help before hand! What am i doing wrong and thank you for helping the newb!

David

So you actually filled up 14 gallons with 508 miles? That's a little over 36 MPG. Seems decent to me for winter time.

What are your EPA #'s?

Something like 40 combined old epa, I think.

Absolutely get the Scangauge. I had my numbers up to low 40's before I got it, and now I'm hitting 55-ish in mid-winter. Here are my approximate shifting ranges:

1st: just enough to get moving, then right into 2nd
2nd: 5 to 15 or 20 mph
3rd: 20 - 30
4th: 30 - 40
5th: 40+

If I'm holding steady speed, I'll run each gear a bit lower even.

Try some work on back roads with P&G. That's where the magic is. You should get some killer numbers out of that car. It's a better starting point than mine is... ;)

not sure but maybe i should check it out? It just seems i could be doing more to get better mileage! just checked and mine is 30mpg combined, so i am getting better then im supposed to but i want more!!!!

I don't really understand the pulse and gluide and all of the acronyms! I would love to do more for sure but also would a small tuned up such as cap rotor plugs do well for me? I already have syn fluids and things like that

Please read Wayne's article here for an intoduction to the terms:
http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1510

I highly recommend the scanguage(2). It will tell many things, including what your instantaneous and trip mpg is. That way you can see the improvements immediately instead of waiting to refill the tank. And don't worry about not having a tach - the scanguage will tell you the engine speed.

I decided to have a little fun on my last fill up. Aggressive acceleration to 4000+ RPM VTEC Kick In and 3rd gear up to 65 mph then 5th. Couldn't beleive I got 43 mpg but that was computed on 4 gals so it could be off [pump]. But 43 mpg would be awesome for having some fun!

i think i am understanding P&G as getting up to a certain speed such as 75mph and then shut off the car and then once i get down to say 55 i turn it back on? is that anywhere near being right and then you get going back up to 75 and then shut off and jsut keep doing that?

That seems kind of extreme, 75 to 55. Hope you have clear roads while doing it. Also, make sure that when you turn your engine off, immediately turn the key forward one position so that you don't lock the steering, and also so your odometer keeps turning. We had someone new last year who was getting much worse mileage than expected, and then we discovered that he wasn't going back to ACC 2 position! All that ice off gliding wasn't showing up when he re-filled (although he was actually saving gas). Very dangerous too.

ok so that is the basic idea though? It seems a wee bit crazy and quite bad for an engine to do so. If i were to do it at closer speeds i would be doing it more often and more wear.

i think i am understanding P&G as getting up to a certain speed such as 75mph and then shut off the car and then once i get down to say 55 i turn it back on? is that anywhere near being right and then you get going back up to 75 and then shut off and jsut keep doing that?

I'm sure someone will come in here and correct me, but yeah that's basically how it works. You want to be bump starting it though instead of turning the key, that all depends on if you have a manual transmission though. You can also just put your car in neutral and coast instead but you won't be getting as many mpg's as you could potentially be getting. When I did all my math for it it seems like with turning off the car and gliding I could be getting as high as 37mpg, while coasting with the car on it was something like 33mpg. I don't remember the exact numbers anymore but I don't do the off-car coasting unless I'm going under 45mph. My glides just aren't long enough when it's above 45mph for me to be messing around with shutting off and bump starting.

I did do 70 to 55mph glide and I was getting about 28 to 29 mpg, I switched to doing 60 to 55mph glide and now I get about 30mpg on my short school commute. Different car though than what you have.

In theory it doesn't make that much of a difference whether you drop 10 mph or 20 mph before the next pulse. You're simply trying to operate the engine where it makes its power most efficiently. Holding the speed steady means the engine operates under low load, where pumping losses mean that you spend a lot of fuel per hp. By only operating the engine occasionally, and at higher load, you burn a lot of gas for that acceleration but you get a lot of efficient acceleration out of it.

Speed does make a big difference though. Aerodynamic drag increases exponentially. Above 50 mph or so it dominates over rolling resistance, so the difference between 50 and 70, for example, is huge.

Hey there, David! First of all, welcome to cleanmpg.com! This is a wonderful forum, and filled with the absolutely nicest folks anywhere.

I'm a relative newby too, David, and we both have lots to learn. So, how about if we just sit back, listen to these great folks, and pick up what tips we can. I know I had significant trouble with all the "Alphabet Soup" on this site too, but see that someone has already posted the link to Wayne's article explaining the terms. On the newer articles, you'll find a little sticky with a question mark in it, following the abbreviations. Simply click on that, and it'll take you to the definition of the term.

Now, let's post lots, ask as many questions as we can, and keep those teachable minds open to absorbing new things. Folks here won't steer you wrong, David! It's just up to us to incorporate their suggestions into our driving patterns.

Have a great one, and I'll talk to you again real soon.

Pax,

Fr. John

Well put, Fr. John.

Hey, I can always appreciate people driving Civics, being a former owner (twice!) myself - last one was a 97 DX hatchback, very similar to yours.

A mild tune up will help ensure you are not wasting gas to incomplete combustion via poor ignition. Tires may be at 52 psi - but if they are a more aggressive sports tread, or a wider tire (you should be around 175 for FE) it's going to hurt your economy.

I assume you still have the factory D16Y7 and transmission? Also check for brakes dragging. Good luck!

Oh, Michael, thanks for the encouragement. I'm far from able to give advice yet, but I surely can welcome folks and love on them a bit ... :)

Have a great one!!

Pax,

Fr. John

This might help:

Video: Pulse & Glide Illustrated (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3958&highlight=pulse)

Video: Pulse & Glide Illustrated II (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4693&highlight=pulse)

David, Did you see these links from the recent "request" thread? They have videos of Delta Flyer performing the Pulse and Glide. I think, seeing it in action really helps.

What are your EPA #'s?

fueleconomy.gov reports that the "old" EPA numbers for a 2000 Civic, manual transmission, were 32/37 (34 combined). The revised numbers for that same car are 27/33 (30 combined). If the OP is getting an average of 38MPG, he's already beating EPA, old OR new!

fueleconomy.gov doesn't break down the sedans (EX/LX/DX) from the hatch (CX) but I think that I remember, when I bought my 1999 Civic EX sedan, that the sticker EPA estimates were the same for both cars. You were lucky to get a CX -- 2000 was the last year they offered them.

peace,
Linda (who sold the '99 EX when she bought an '01 Prius, and sold a '95 Escort wagon when she bought the '03 Civic Hybrid, now driving the Insight pictured above) :-)

fueleconomy.gov reports that the "old" EPA numbers for a 2000 Civic, manual transmission, were 32/37 (34 combined). The revised numbers for that same car are 27/33 (30 combined). If the OP is getting an average of 38MPG, he's already beating EPA, old OR new!

fueleconomy.gov doesn't break down the sedans (EX/LX/DX) from the hatch (CX) but I think that I remember, when I bought my 1999 Civic EX sedan, that the sticker EPA estimates were the same for both cars. You were lucky to get a CX -- 2000 was the last year they offered them.

peace,
Linda (who sold the '99 EX when she bought an '01 Prius, and sold a '95 Escort wagon when she bought the '03 Civic Hybrid, now driving the Insight pictured above) :-)

The 96-00 CX is not nearly the miser the 92-95 model was. The 92-95 models had 4 distinct engine packages, whereas the 96-00 family only had 3.

For the 96-00 models there were...

Hatch : CX, DX
Coupe: DX, LX, HX, EX, SI
Sedan: DX, LX, EX

The EX model came with the 127 hp D16Y8 SOHC VTEC engine.

The HX came with the D16Y5 SOHC VTEC-E engine.

The SI had the 1.6L DOHC B16A2 high performance engine (160 hp).

All others came with the D16Y7 SOHC engine.

All engines were 16 valve, unlike the 92-95 CX, which was 8 valve and only 1.5L vs the 1.6L on all the 96-00 models. The 92-95 CX also had much taller gearing than all of the 96-00 models.

The only differences between the CX and DX hatches are...

Rear wiper on DX
A/C standard on DX
Painted spoiler on DX

Really, the differences are almost trivial. The typical CX may be 30-40 lbs lighter, but that's all. The gearing is even the same.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_civic, it's the same D16Y7 engine in my DX - sohc non-vtec. My old epa is 33/38.

Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/used/2000/honda/civic/3262/specs.html) says yours is 33/37.

I've got a slight aerodynamic advantage with a trunk to smooth out the rear airflow, but otherwise, it's the same car.

Edit: Nice work, Shifty!

I think i understand the pulse and glide in that it is used for short stuff , more or less . I havea manual transmission and to be honest i don't know how to bump start my car. I know its sad considering that im a car guy and all:mad:. I have 205/50R15 tires on my car that are Kumho ASX which are a performnace all season radial. They are not they best for FE. My Routes for driving around are pretty set as in there are no other ways to get there. I drive about 20miles on the turnpike and another 5-6 on another highway. No real areas going down hill sadly and lots of uphills.
The only reservation i have about p&g is one night i was pretty much doing it and some guy followed me home and thought i was drunk and wantedto fight me or something. I know that when i had my car lowered it would glide longer but now it def takes longer and doesn't go as far! Should i be usinbg P&G on my high drives and how would that really work?

also has anyone added a hotter plug ? I was going to go and see what i can find today but isn't a hotter mixture a better more effcient one, since i m really not trying to make more power? and what about advancing ignition timing?

The farthest I've gone is about 200 miles with full P&G at highway speed. Interstate, 70 speed limit, I did 55-65 P&G. Engine on but in neutral for flat glides, off for any kind of downhill. Pulse for 5 seconds, glide for 10, and then do it again. It was grueling, but I managed 55mpg over that trip.

On the way back I just set cruise to 65, and got 43mpg.

I'd say the tires are costing you between 20-25% of the FE you could get on a properly sized LRR (low rolling resistance) tire. Tire compound and size plays such a huge role in performance and handling that you are almost forced to compromise if you want to bump your economy up. This is especially true if your drive is mostly low speed where RR is the primary FE killer (vs aero drag at highway speeds).

Use the stock heat range, as that is the one for typical economical driving. When I was hot rodding Hondas I always ran 1-2 ranges cold due to the frequent high RPM abuse.

Do you need a valve adjustment?

i kind of figured the tires were costing me but if thats something thats doing it then i can't really afford to change them. Im not sure if i need a valve adjustment or not, the car only has 64k on it so im not sure but i guess that is something i could look at. Also i have been shifting really early getting to 5th asap but still accelerating slow, im not reving the motor much. Im in 5th by about 25-28mph, is that helping or hurting me at all?

Too low of an rpm is bad for the engine (lugging) and will also give you poor FE. Most 4 cylinder engines have peak efficiency at about 2000rpm at low acceleration speeds. So you want to keep the engine in the 1500-2500 range when accelerating. Most people find better results at the lower end of that. So rev up to about 2000, then shift to the next gear. If you don't have a tach, then pull out your user's manual and look at the recommended shifting speeds. Shift a mph or two before these.

Also, "popping" the clutch is very easy. The best way to learn is when there's no one around and you're doing about 30mph, put the car in neutral (shifting knob centered) and turn the key from the on to the acc position, then wait a few seconds for the engine to die. Then turn the key back to the on position. Push in the clutch and select a gear that's lower than the gear you would use to cruise (So at 30mph you'd probably be cruising in 3rd, so 2nd gear is probably the best choice). Let in the clutch very slowly. Don't let the clutch in all the way, just enough to restart the engine. There will be a small jolt as the car's momentum moves the engine, and you'll see your dash lights turn off (oil, brake and others). The shift to your cruising gear and engage. You get the feel for it very quickly. Think of "tapping" the clutch in gear when you jump start it. You let the clutch in just enough to restart in, and then push it in again.

This will allow you to FAS, however be aware that you loose power steering and brakes when doing this. It's good to learn how your car handles when this happens. In my car my power steering goes out immediately during FAS, but there's still pressure in my power brake lines. However when doing really long FASs, the power brake pressure drops and it takes more pressure on the brakes to stop the car.

And of course do all of this at your own risk, FAS can be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing.

For me, bumping the engine to restart at the end of a FAS, works well in a higher gear. I've been using 5th gear to just gently get the engine started, and then immediately push the clutch back in and select the proper gear for whatever my new lower speed is. I find that selecting a lower gear for a bump restart with my car, gives more of a jolt. It's smoother for my car when I use 5th gear for the restart.

^ exactly what I do for bump-starting. Bump, then neutral, then choose a gear and go.

I think you're shifting a bit too early / too low rpm. If I'm accelerating, I won't go into 5th until 35mph or so. I think it's better to have less time on the gas than to focus entirely on low rpm. If 4th will get you there, use it.


http://www.search-autoparts.com/searchautoparts/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=49911 That's my car, but your engine is the same, so those details will match.
Valve adjustment: 30,000 miles

Bump starting- use a higher gear. Just like push starting a car, use 2nd, not 1st. Why fight the reduction in the trans?

Keith

Tools for a valve lash are cheap, I invested in them and saved the $135 dealer cost + plus a day off driving + hassle of appointment. My valve lash adjustment probably improved my mpg only by .8 to 1 mpg, but I found lots of lashes way off spec - a .10 would be .12 measurement. So it's nice doing it yourself. Takes about 4 hours most. And inspect your timing belt while you do it! I was so boneheaded I forgot to do that!

Accelerating in 5th gear at 25 mph is definitely lugging it. I take 3rd all the way to 65 mph for faster acceleration in the VTEC range and it supposedly doesn't seem to hurt me much. I'll experiment 1 whole week with pedal to metal accelration to see what kind of mpg I get. I need to know the performance envelope of my car.

A picture is worth a thousand words - that's what the scanguageII will do for you!!! If your car has fuel cutoff during coast, you don't necessarily have to always cut the engine to coast for free, but you can't see this without a Scangauge. :)

I actually figured out the bump start, funny thing is i knew how to do it in theory but never had to do it in practice. I think the lower shifting is not a good thing for sure and the fas'ing has been working i think. I actually found something rather interesting and thought i would share it not sure if its real or not let me know what you think. Hopefully i will hear something about it soon. www.picctv.com/mechanic . Any other pointers that might be out there? thanks

Pumafeet10, that advertisement reads: "Using a magnetic and electrical reaction to break down the fuel molecules into their elemental state, the PICC creates a plasma, which burns super efficiently and cleanly!" The fusion reactor at Princeton University used an almost perfect vacuum to prevent unwanted heat transfer, HUGE magnets pulsed once the electrons and protons disassociated, to confine the plasma, and microwave and neutral beam pellets fired at very high speeds, to heat the hydrogen isotopes into a plasma (4th state of matter). High temperatures of over 60 Million degrees Centigrade were required. Not only do I not believe a simple add on catalyst could do this to my gasoline, but the resultant "plasma" would likely not burn in my engine. Still, perhaps CleanMPG will take up the challenge of testing this device to verify the claims this manufactuer makes. Refineries "crack" crude oil to produce a range of products from each barrel. The resultant products vary from very light gas (propane, butane) to the very heavy - asphalt. Gasoline comes off somewhere in the middle, diesel a little lower, and blending produces jet fuel and kerosene. Your gasoline is highly purified in a molecular sense. This add on would seem to go against all advantages blended into your fuel.

Tools for a valve lash are cheap, I invested in them and saved the $135 dealer cost + plus a day off driving + hassle of appointment. My valve lash adjustment probably improved my mpg only by .8 to 1 mpg, but I found lots of lashes way off spec - a .10 would be .12 measurement. So it's nice doing it yourself. Takes about 4 hours most. And inspect your timing belt while you do it! I was so boneheaded I forgot to do that!

Accelerating in 5th gear at 25 mph is definitely lugging it. I take 3rd all the way to 65 mph for faster acceleration in the VTEC range and it supposedly doesn't seem to hurt me much. I'll experiment 1 whole week with pedal to metal accelration to see what kind of mpg I get. I need to know the performance envelope of my car.

Most people probably have the tools for doing this already. You just need a small wrench (10mm or so), flathead screwdriver, feeler gauge, and a metric socket set (to turn the engine). If anything, most people won't have the feeler gauge, but they cost only a few dollars and are easily available. You don't even need a manual as the settings should be printed on the underhood emissions sticker, or in the owner's manual. If you don't make any mistakes and don't do anything else the job shouldn't take more than 1 hour.

i don't think the valve adjustment will be a prob, did it on my 96 accord so that will be quick and easy. i put myself on the pre order for the scan gauge so i will be getting that. im not sure what else i might be able to do? i drive slow and have been using the fas and p and g as much as i can so i guess we will see. I was def shifting way too early and it def made my motor suffer. I really want to know what people think about the picctv.com/mechanic stuff? seems too good to be true but im unsure!

You know puma - I think you're proof that if you shift too early and lug acceleration you will get poor FE !

yeah shifting early doesn't help at all, it killed me pretty quick but i have made up for it using fas which has been great, and now i have started to do research on makinga belly pan/undertray for my car. I ordered a scan gauage so i hope to get that soon. Still trying to figure out more ways to lower my cars weight and get my fe up . I wish i could get my gas milleage up like you , HX!

I got my scangauge today and am seeing results already. I have changed my driving a bit and am working on keeping my gph low and mpg but i need help. Any pointers from anyone on how to get the most out of the scangauge and make a difference. Also what can i do about the unit turning off when i fas and p&g ? or where would be the bet place to find the answers? Thanks

Hi Pumafeet:

___Set your SG-II to Hybrid in the Setup section and it will work as expected. You can post questions like that in the ScanGauge forums if you need more help :)

___99HxCivic, third to 60 + is absolutely positively throwing it away :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I wish I could find power - torque curves for my car. Might help me decide when to shift. I like getting acceleration down fairly speedy and in the car's power band. I don't know my car's peak torque and hp at RPM, so I just take my shifting at 4500 to 5500 RPM, and I still get good mpg. I feel not lugging acceleration is good for my tranny. It's less mechanical back impedance.

Puma - maybe you should experiment a tank with shifting at 4500 RPM between gears - and then tell us what mpg avg you get!

3rd to 65 mph is a good acceleration and in the power band for my car. And my car suffers going uphill so you have to have high rpms [3000+] going uphill.

OK THANKS FOR THE TIPS xcel i had it set up for gas so i guess that might switching that up. Def a fun little gadget to have. my driving will be changed forever!:woot: