10th Honda Civic Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
The difference between a 1998 CVT and 2016 CVT is Night and Day, especially Honda. They are so far advanced that they feel like a real automatic and have great reliability. My 2006 CVT has 176k Miles and still works great


Could you imagine if everyone said Automatic's suck just because they had an early one with problems?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
Those are very respectable numbers. I don't think that anyone can complain about those assuming they pan out in the real world and all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
I think 42mpg highway is reasonable. Would like to know what the mpg number is for city driving since I don't go on the highway at all during the weekdays.
Thanks for the screenshot!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
Anyone willing to bet that both engines will easily exceed their EPA ratings? Honda is known for conservatively rating their cars. Honest fuel economy ratings unlike other turboed engine families from a particular domestic manufacturer.

I cannot wait to possibly bring one of these cars home. I will be undecided on which engine until I drive them both.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,287 Posts
Anyone willing to bet that both engines will easily exceed their EPA ratings? Honda is known for conservatively rating their cars. Honest fuel economy ratings unlike other turboed engine families from a particular domestic manufacturer.

I cannot wait to possibly bring one of these cars home. I will be undecided on which engine until I drive them both.
I don't know about easily, but possible yes... My 8th gen coupe i had in college was rated at 38 on the highway (37? maybe) and i used to get 41-42mpg on trips from columbus to pittsburgh (even driving aggressively in traffic). So i'd imagine both of the new engines under flat ideal conditions are capable of upwards of 45mpg on long trips at cruising speeds
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top