1995 Honda Civic VX from North America - Comments

Replaced O2 sensor at 130,000 miles.

I bought my '95 Civic VX new in the fall of 1995 and have 206,000 miles on it now. I give it the obvious praise for its Honda reliability. It has never stranded me except a couple of times when I was trying to squeeze too many miles from a tank of gas, and almost ran out of gas. And I have never done anything to the car outside of normal routine maintenance and replacing the usual wearable items. (including an O2 sensor, which I consider a maintenance item, albeit a longer duration maintenance item).

But I'm most impressed with its fuel economy. For the first 45,000 miles on the original set of tires (which were lousy handing, but very low rolling resistant Dunlops), I regularly averaged 55 - 57 mpg (and this is a CA emissions car). In the winter, the mileage dropped about 10 - 15%. When I replaced the original tires at 45k miles, the same tires weren't available. The originals were lousy (handling-wise) Dunlop SP4N* or something like that. I bought a set of different Dunlops to replace them and found the mileage dropped to 45 mpg under the identical driving conditions. Luckily, I bought the tires at a place that had a "1000 mile or 30 day satisfaction" guarantee so I was able to return the first set and try another set of tires without paying for the original set. I am a conservation freak, so a 9-12 mpg (up to 20%) drop in fuel economy was not acceptable. I proceeded to try 4 more different sets of tires with the same results... lousy gas mileage. I finally did my own research on the internet and found that Nokian makes a tire for the VX (correct size 165/70R13) called the NRT2 that is specifically advertised as a low rolling resistance tire. It was also through my research that I discovered that the OEM tires are usually low rolling resistance tires, and are only made for the manufacturer to put on the vehicle to boost their EPA fuel economy numbers (for the CAFE standards), but that these same factory tires are not available for purchase by the consumer when the tires need to be replaced. The VX tires are a very rare size today and were rare even 8 years ago. My tire salesman recommended moving up one tire size to the more common 175/70R13 where there are potentially more choices available in low rolling resistance tires. I didn't want this size tire because it would skew the odometer mileage, which would have shown fewer miles than actually driven... and I was too obsessed with knowing my true gas mileage (I've seen posts on several forums where people say they improved their mileage by using a bigger diameter tire... I don't see how it's possible). And bigger/heavier tires would mean at least a small fuel economy penalty to offset the improved mileage of low rolling resistance tires.

Anyway, with the Nokians I achieved a respectable 52-54 mpg during non-winter driving AND they handled much much better than the original Dunlops. In fact my first set of Nokians handled better at the end of their life with 80,000 miles on them than the original Dunlops handled fresh off the dealer's lot in 1995. Two sets of Nokians later, I'm almost ready to put my third set of Nokians on the car, which now has 206,000 miles on it.

I discovered, however, that Nokian discontinued the NRT2 in 2004, and all other available Nokian tires in size 165/70R13 aren't as lightweight as the NRT2 nor do they have the low rolling resistance of the NRT2. After considerable research, I found that Vredestein makes a tire called the Quatrac2 in size 165/70R13 which is advertised as a low rolling resistance tire, so I'll buy these within the next 5,000 miles.

Here are my observations about fuel economy. Tire type is one of the biggest factors when there's a big change in fuel economy. Other big factors are 1) tire pressure (keeping them at the maximum pressure labeled on the tire sidewall gives 5-8%

improvement in fuel economy over the recommended tire pressure in the owner's manual) ; 2) cold weather (i.e. 35F and below versus 50F and above), which effects my fuel economy by about 5 - 7 mpg; and 3) Driving habits; no idling or warming up the car, no sudden braking/acceleration, no short trips, limit city driving etc.

I found this review to be extremely well written and articulated. It was very helpful in explaining how tire type can affect gas mileage.

Hey so how are those Quatrac2 tires work for you? Are they good?

I was under the impression that warming up the engine would bring the engine up to the proper operating temp so fuel would burn more efficiently. I have been doing this, but I haven't measured the results to see if it makes a difference. Does that make sense?

Great review by the way. Makes me wish I had a VX now.

Seth.

One thing to keep in mind when buying new tires is that you will see lower than normal mileage for the first few thousand miles until the new rubber gets broken in. When I put new LRR Michelin Harmony tires (size 175/70/13, one size up from the now hard-to-find OEM 165/70/13) on mine, I got about 45 MPG for the first 1000 miles, but then by 4000 miles, the mileage was back up to its usual 52 to 55 MPG. Lately I have been experimenting with adding modifications (underbody panels, rear wheel skirts, etc.) to reduce aerodynamic drag and am getting mileage in the mid 70's.

I'm the one who wrote the original long review above. I wanted to respond to a couple of comments:

1) Warming up the car is a waste of fuel and it's bad for the exhaust system (i.e. will rust out faster). The car will warm up to operating temperature as you're driving it... and at least you're accumulating miles while doing it.

2) I haven't tried the Vredestein Quatrac 2 tires yet. I have 216,000 miles on my VX now, and the Nokian NRT2s still aren't quite worn out yet... maybe another 6k-8k miles.

3) Everything I read about the Michelin Harmony indicated it was not a low rolling resistance/fuel efficient tire, so I'm surprised you're getting good fuel economy with them. I'd be interested to know how you fabricated and attached underbody panels, rear wheel skirts. You can email me at cems70@hotmail.com if you want.

I warm my vehicles up so that the thermostat can open and so that the oil can get circulated. It is not as good to drive without warming up. So if I start the car and drive off on a highway at 55mph, don't tell me there is less wear; especially when I have darn near 250,000 miles on my engine.

I do not wish to refute achieving 250,000 miles by religiously warming up a car, as that is an accomplishment in and of itself. But, if the oil has not circulated through the engine thoroughly within only a few seconds after start up, there's something significantly wrong and there will be excessive wear, engine warmed up or not.

The reason warming up a car may reduce wear is that when the engine is cold, the moving parts do not fit as tightly as they are designed to be during normal operation. While the fit is looser than designed, parts can wear faster as the oil does not lubricate these wider spaces as well. Driving a car hard (harsh acceleration, high RPMs, etc.) while in this state can exacerbate the problems associated with this loose fit. Once the engine is up to operating temperature and the metals have expanded, this is no longer at issue.

Without precisely measuring fuel economy on a sample vehicle driven under both methods, it is probably not clear which method is more fuel efficient. On the one hand, the cold car is using more fuel to cover the first few miles until warmed up than the warm car would in those miles. However, on the other hand, warming the car is burning fuel whilst going nowhere, effectively getting 0 miles per gallon during that warm up period.

I did not mean for the oil, I meant for the reason you said by the moving parts in the engine to be able to move better.

"So if I start the car and drive off on a highway at 55mph, don't tell me there is less wear; especially when I have darn near 250,000 miles on my engine."

A few things:

1) I only said that warming up the car wastes gas (as the other commenter said, you're getting 0 MPG during the warmup period). I didn't say anything about wear.

2) I should have added that when it's below 30 degrees F, I let my engine run for 30 seconds to one minute before starting to drive. This is plenty of time to allow the oil to circulate.

3) Regardless of the outside temperature when starting the car cold, I'm always in the taller gears as soon as possible to minimize the high RPMs. Lower RPMs is another key factor to good fuel economy.

4) Even if I'm on the highway going 55 mph within 2 minutes of starting the car cold, my VX turns over less than 2000 RPMs at this speed. A cold engine warming up at idle is still turning 1200-1500 RPM, which is not much less than a 55 mph RPMs in 5th gear.

5) Speaking of wear, I have 217,000 miles on my VX now, and with all my non-warmups, it's still not buring a drop of oil.

With your warmups, what is your average MPG during the summer?

I am actually getting 41 miles per gallon. I drive about 500-600 miles a week on my Honda. I am actually more accustomed to driving cars with a carb, so I am just used to warming up period. So far I have had no problems at all with my car, which I attribute to the car being well built and how I maintain the car.

- John, 94 Accord w/240,000 miles.

Note to the original author, the different tire sizes (165 and 175) actually refers to the width of the tire. Not the diameter. So your mileage and odometer readings would still be accurate. The 70/13 is where you actually get the diameter of the tire. Thus changing the 70 or the 13 would change the mileage and odometer readings, but not the first number, 175. Also good to note that a wider tire would probably have a higher rolling resistance to a thinner one, but that still would not effect the odometer readings or accuracy.

Um, no, the two tires are of different diameters. The "70" refers to the aspect ratio: the height of the sidewall as a percentage of the tire's width. 70% of 175 mm is more than 70% of 165 mm. A 165/70-13 tire is 22.09 inches in diameter whereas a 175/70-13 tire is 22.65 inches in diameter.

A small difference, but enough to cause the speedometer to read 1-2 mph less than actual speed when the larger tire is used.

I have a 1993 Honda VX that I bought in 2001 which now has 176K on it. Regarding the tires: yes, the original Dunlops were downright dangerous. A friend who owned this exact car actual began to slide off the crown of the road at a stoplight while he was completely stopped - no joking. Fortunately, the other cars got out of the way.

I did some research (Consumer Reports) when I wanted to replace my Dunlops and did go with 175/70/13s. The choices were a BF Goodrich or a Yokohama. I found the BF Goodrich Control T/A All Season radials locally and the car did not lose any mileage with the wider tires (not even accounting for odometer corrections) PLUS it was infinitely safer - no more hydroplaning and decent winter traction.

I have a reprint of a January 1993 Road and Track article of this car where the authors drove the car using careful driving habits (mostly not over 55 MPH and slowing on hills) and AVERAGED just over 64 MPG for an entire tank of gas. The article is very interesting and tells a few secrets about the high gas mileage (e.g., the alternator does not charge the battery under heavy engine load conditions). It is worth digging up to read if you are a geek like me who loves this stuff.

For my past 3 tanks of gas, I've been trying to drive slowly (not over 55 MPH) as long as I'm not in heavy traffic and I've been AVERAGING 55 MPG in mixed driving.

BTW, I start the car and let the oil circulate for several seconds and then drive off slowly - no warm up. I am not burning any oil, I have the original clutch and I tow a couple of small trailers with this car on a regular basis. It is truly an amazing vehicle!!

I have a civic vx with 133k miles on it (replaced 02 sensor at 129k). I bought it few month ago, and I am confused what oil should I use for that vehicle. On the engine it says to use 5w-30, but my friends tells me to use 10w-30, because I have older vehicle and 5w-30 will ruin my engine. So I would like to know is it better to use 10w-30, and will it effect fuel efficient of the car? Thanks.

I'd continue with the 5w-30 as OEM specs call for.