What kind of mileage do you guys get with your VX?

[imzjustplayin]

I was thinking of getting a honda HX/VX but I was reading and some of the MPG numbers put me off because they were much worse than the EPA rating. So, if you have a VX or HX, can you please post what kind of mileage you get with it?

[1993CivicVX]

I think you have a point that these cars get more credit than they deserve. The reason people with VXes don't have as large a gap (or even worse than EPA) as compared with other cars--is when the EPA does the test for that car, the shift light makes the drvier shift earlier than he is shifting when testing the mpg of any other car. The other reason is those LRR tires that the VX originally came with and still exist, probably, on only one VX. (Maybe you can find him on this forum ) But, I know that a lot of the VX owners on here drive their VX "spiritedly" I personally get in the 50s, but this tank I think may be in the low 60s because I have been EOCing and P&Ging like it was a crime to burn gas (I'm just below half tank at 373 miles). Driving without thinking twice about economy, the car will get between 40-44mpg (depending on your driving habits) --and then sipping it you can get in the 50s--but it takes some discipline. I think given that the original LRR tires are no longer to be found on VXes, a 2 door civic coupe of the same generation of the VX (but is non-VX/HX, ie., has no lean burn) can achieve by a talented driver only slightly worse numbers than the VX, and they are easier to come by. They have significantly better aerodynamics, and if you are P&Ging, there may be an argument for not needing lean burn as much, as lean burn really shines when driving at a constant speed.

Which raises a question I have. What is the power/fuel consumption ratio between lean burn and full enrichment mode? For example, how much horsepower do I get if I floor it in 5th gear--and how much fuel am I using... compared to how much horsepower I get while remaining in lean burn and how much fuel am I consuming. How do these two aspects compare? This could answer some questions about whether it's better to maintain lean burn on the pulse, or whether it's better to just floor it. If lean burn is a better combination of fuel consumption and power, (ie, you get more power per unit of fuel when in lean burn than when in full enrichment) then it makes sense it would be better to run at a higher RPM (thus a lower gear) to maintain lean burn than being at the lowest possible RPM and being in full enrichment mode (which is how I drive, since I don't have a lean burn monitor). Anyone follow what I'm getting at? Anyone know??? Would love to see these two ratios compared side by side. I probably should get in the habit of maintinaing lean bur at higher RPM as this is much better on the motor and transmission than always pushing the car at the lowest RPM.

[Danronian]

I get around 45 MPG in a mix of off-highway and stop and go driving.

My VX is well maintained (minus the valve adjustment I've been puting off...) w/ about 140k miles on it and with 250k miles plus on the chassis. It's a very solid car. I've been given numerous offers over what I paid for it, and I'm not getting rid of it until the price of the insights starts to go down.

Great car. This is my 4th Honda now but I would recommend a VX or HX to just about anyone.

[smccall]

I'm at about 47mpg with highway and city driving. On the highway, I'm running 70-80 mph, but if I was able to drive slower, I would easliy be in the 50s. I would recommend getting a HX or a VX anyday. I had a 99 HX and it game me low to mid 40s. An HX would be easier to find nowadays with everyone taking the bubble hatches (92-95) and swapping in H22s, B18s, B20s, and bodykits. Like Dan said, an Insight is in my future. I wish I would have invested in one when they were more available and more reasonable in price. everyine who's selling them now has a premium on them. I've seen some used ones priced at almost new prices.

[monroe74]

imz: "I was reading and some of the MPG numbers put me off because they were much worse than the EPA rating"

In another thread I showed that most VX owners seem to get about 45 mpg, which is a bit higher than EPA. See details here:

http://www.gassavers.org/showpost.ph...7&postcount=11

A VX doing "much worse than the EPA rating" probably has a bad O2 sensor, or other serious problems. Or is being driven very hard.

[monroe74]

1993: "when the EPA does the test for that car, the shift light makes the drvier shift earlier than he is shifting when testing the mpg of any other car"

Really? Are you sure that EPA runs the test that way?

"those LRR tires that the VX originally came with and still exist, probably, on only one VX"

It's true that most VX owners seem be running 175/70. But the effect is probably mixed. The tire makes gearing taller, which means a speedo error of more than 2%, which means that many VX mpg claims are probably understated, by that amount. The taller gearing might also make real mpg higher than what you would get with a smaller tire (aside from making observed mpg lower than real mpg).

Anyway, it looks like tirerack has Sumi 165/70 available, so it seems possible to get back to stock, if someone wants to do that. I intend to do that when my 175/70 Sumis wear out.

"They (the EG coupe) have significantly better aerodynamics [compared with the EG hatch]"

Really? Are you sure? The VX has a coefficient of drag is 0.32. That's pretty low.

Also, I think you're incorrect to suggest that all the VX has is lean burn and LRR. You're leaving out VTEC-E (which is something separate from lean burn). There's other stuff too, like gearing, and various weight reductions. A good technical listing of various VX FE ingredients is in this pdf.

"then it makes sense it would be better to run at a higher RPM (thus a lower gear) to maintain lean burn than being at the lowest possible RPM and being in full enrichment mode"

I think high gear is always going to be better. I'm using a DMM as a lean-burn monitor, and it's certainly possible to maintain lean burn in a high gear, provided you are very gentle with the throttle.

But I still have a question very similar to yours. Being gentle with the throttle is at odds with my normal P&G technique, which is designed to minimize pumping losses. I raised this question here:

http://www.gassavers.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=147

"I probably should get in the habit of maintinaing lean bur at higher RPM as this is much better on the motor and transmission than always pushing the car at the lowest RPM."

I don't think so. Wear is roughly proportional to number of revs. Your expected engine lifetime can be expressed as a rev count. Lower revs per minute means lower revs per year, which means more years before your engine runs out of revs.

[Sigifrith]

You can buy HX 14" wheels, then get 14" Insight tires (Potenza's). I did this, & my mileage has gone up.
My 90 day average is 60.79, so you can improve on the EPA numbers.

[monroe74]

"You can buy HX 14" wheels"

You're getting great results, so that seems to be working well.

But I assume you're getting a fairly substantial speedo error. Are you correcting for that in your gaslog? If not, then the mpg you're reporting is probably understated.

Also, do you find that first gear feels tall? I assume the bigger tire would create an effect like that.

[R.I.D.E.]

My last five tanks were 61,56,50,65,62.

My car just turned 30k miles on the original tires built in 9-93.
Only parts replaced are air filter and wiper blades.
I'm retired and avoid rush hour congestion and drive roads where I know the location of every pothole.

I reversed the air intake snorkel and shortened it just enough to draw warm air from right behind the top radiator tank and upper radiator hose.

My car came with AC, used it 10 minutes in 3 k miles, no radio ( hearing is bad enough already) and a grille block over about 60% of the drivers side of the grille from the factory.

I use the cheapest regular gas I can buy.

the car was totalled in 95 kept inside in a controlled environment. I bought it in March 08 had it shipped form Ohio to VA and repaired it with 27,492 miles on the odometer. I runs and drives like a 2 year old car, but still needs paint to be finished.

If I religously use hypermileing (engine on coasting is my preferred method) and used my best route I can easily average over 60 MPG. Drafting a large truck at 65 MPH my best mileage was 65.744 MPG, 304 miles on 4.627 gallons of cheap regular.

If you rode with me I think you would agree that my situation represents close to an ideal scenario for mileage. the only better situation would be a deserted somewhat hilly country road with no traffic. Under those circumstances with engine off coasting I know I coud top 70 MPG, maybe even 80.

I easily beat my brothers new Prius on an identical route with both cars driven carefully for best mileage.

regards
gary

[imzjustplayin]

Originally Posted by monroe74

imz: "I was reading and some of the MPG numbers put me off because they were much worse than the EPA rating"

In another thread I showed that most VX owners seem to get about 45 mpg, which is a bit higher than EPA. See details here:

http://www.gassavers.org/showpost.ph...7&postcount=11

A VX doing "much worse than the EPA rating" probably has a bad O2 sensor, or other serious problems. Or is being driven very hard.

"In another thread I showed that most VX owners seem to get about 45 mpg, which is a bit higher than EPA. See details here:"

45mpg is not higher than EPA under any circumstance. When I say EPA, I mean old EPA, not new EPA. Old EPA IS possible, the question is how possible. On my Lexus, the OLD EPA rating was only slightly inaccurate, not enough to piss me off too much, however I do not know if this is the case with the VX or not. I want to know how difficult it is to achieve 47 city and 56 highway. Remember, old EPA, not new EPA.