Honda HR-V Forum banner
Cancel

Mpg

32303 Views 72 Replies 43 Participants Last post by  wildcatsfan86, 
shu
I just finished typing a message back to Bice and decided to look at the Fed's MPG site. Low and behold numbers are posted!


http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.shtml


Select 2016 and Honda!! Almost on par with a Civic.
Reply
Save
Like
1 - 20 of 73 Posts
Dermochelys
shu said:
I just finished typing a message back to Bice and decided to look at the Fed's MPG site. Low and behold numbers are posted!


http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.shtml


Select 2016 and Honda!! Almost on par with a Civic.
Click to expand...
Great find! Not quite as good as I was hoping for, but I'll take it. About on par with a Mazda CX-5, better than a Subaru XV or Forester, but not by much. Thanks for sharing!

2WD (CVT) 28 city, 35 hwy, 31 combined
2WD (Man) 25 city, 34 hwy, 28 combined
AWD 27 city, 32 hwy, 29 combined.


Edit: I went back and looked at what my current car gets on these tests as a comparison. I have a 2002 Toyota Solara with the 3.0L engine with a manual. They rate it at 17 city /25 hwy /20 combined, but I get 27 combined just about every time I fill up, with 32 hwy, and about 25 in the city, so maybe my driving habits are extra eco-friendly and the HR-V could push 40mpg on the hwy (of course that is total speculation, but I thought an interesting observation).
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
B
shu said:
I just finished typing a message back to Bice and decided to look at the Fed's MPG site. Low and behold numbers are posted!



http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.shtml


Select 2016 and Honda!! Almost on par with a Civic.
Click to expand...

Wow....thanks for finding that!


Those numbers look pretty good.
Reply
Save
Like
B
Bicepeak said:
Wow....thanks for finding that!


Those numbers look pretty good.
Click to expand...
Strange....they list two automatics.....
Reply
Save
Like
Dermochelys
Yeah, I noticed that as well. I wonder if one is for the LX CVT which probably won't have paddle shifters and the other is for EX and EX-L with the paddle shifters....That's the only thing I could think of, but I don't see how that would make any difference.
Reply
Save
Like
B
Dermochelys said:
Yeah, I noticed that as well. I wonder if one is for the LX CVT which probably won't have paddle shifters and the other is for EX and EX-L with the paddle shifters....That's the only thing I could think of, but I don't see how that would make any difference.
Click to expand...
You guessed it.....The AV-S7 is with paddle shifters....


http://www.aboutautomobile.com/Fuel/2010/Honda/Insight
Reply
Save
Like
B
shu said:
I just finished typing a message back to Bice and decided to look at the Fed's MPG site. Low and behold numbers are posted!


http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.shtml


Select 2016 and Honda!! Almost on par with a Civic.
Click to expand...
shu,
You must have just caught this as it came out because Motor Trend just now reported it.
http://wot.motortrend.com/1501_2016_honda_hr_v_rated_2835_mpg_with_cvt_fwd.html
Reply
Save
Like
B
Dermochelys said:
Great find! Not quite as good as I was hoping for, but I'll take it. About on par with a Mazda CX-5, better than a Subaru XV or Forester, but not by much. Thanks for sharing!

2WD (CVT) 28 city, 35 hwy, 31 combined
2WD (Man) 25 city, 34 hwy, 28 combined
AWD 27 city, 32 hwy, 29 combined.


Edit: I went back and looked at what my current car gets on these tests as a comparison. I have a 2002 Toyota Solara with the 3.0L engine with a manual. They rate it at 17 city /25 hwy /20 combined, but I get 27 combined just about every time I fill up, with 32 hwy, and about 25 in the city, so maybe my driving habits are extra eco-friendly and the HR-V could push 40mpg on the hwy (of course that is total speculation, but I thought an interesting observation).
Click to expand...

Interesting.... I bet I could improve on the 25 mpg city if had the manual. Not sure I could improve the highway 34.
My 2004 Scion xB is rated at 27-32-29 combined (users average 35). Considering the HR-V is bigger, heavier and more powerful that is pretty good.
Reply
Save
Like
T
I'm a bit disappointed. but I guess I was wishing too much for something closer to 33/38. Still good numbers. Can't wait to see it at the auto show in a few weeks.
Reply
Save
Like
M
I also have been getting better than expected mileage on my 03 Civic, so gas use can vary dependant upon the driver. The findings are great in my mind with the HRV
Reply
Save
Like
B
tossici said:
I'm a bit disappointed. but I guess I was wishing too much for something closer to 33/38. Still good numbers. Can't wait to see it at the auto show in a few weeks.
Click to expand...
I admit I was a bit disappointed too. But, I checked other cars on the site and many do better than the numbers originally given.
Reply
Save
Like
badyellowvette
Does this mean we are not getting the 1.5 L.
Reply
Save
Like
C
Dermochelys said:
Great find! Not quite as good as I was hoping for, but I'll take it. About on par with a Mazda CX-5, better than a Subaru XV or Forester, but not by much. Thanks for sharing!

2WD (CVT) 28 city, 35 hwy, 31 combined
2WD (Man) 25 city, 34 hwy, 28 combined
AWD 27 city, 32 hwy, 29 combined.
Click to expand...
Not as good as I hoped either, especially since I'm a manual tranny guy. If I decide to go with a small crossover for my next vehicle I might take the Subaru XV over the HR-V because I can get AWD with a manual and it has greater rough-road capabilities (I go hiking/backpacking in the mountains).

I currently drive a 2007 Honda Fit Sport MT with just over 100k miles. I love the cargo capacity with the magic seats, which is why I'm considering the HR-V. I think I'll probably hold on to my Fit another couple years to see the real-world MPG numbers on the HR-V, the possibility of AWD with MT (doubtful), and what Subaru does with their new global platform.
Reply
Save
Like
shu
Another article - http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1501-2016-honda-hr-v-mpg-numbers-announced/


I assume that we should hear about crash results soon too.
Reply
Save
Like
R
I can't believe the MPG's are almost identical to the 2015 CRV. Is that even possible? If so, I'll probably go with the CRV. I'm used to a Prius and thought the HRV might make the transition just a little easier.
Reply
Save
Like
Dermochelys
redclay03 said:
I can't believe the MPG's are almost identical to the 2015 CRV. Is that even possible? If so, I'll probably go with the CRV. I'm used to a Prius and thought the HRV might make the transition just a little easier.
Click to expand...
At first I was also surprised at that, but then I thought about how the CRV is based on the Civic, and the HR-V is getting a Civic engine, so maybe that's why they're so close. Personally, I think the HR-V looks better than a CR-V and I don't need all the space of the CR-V, so I'm still leaning more towards the HR-V.
Reply
Save
Like
slimstrike
Plus I assume a fully loaded HR-V will be significantly less than the equivalent CR-V. I agree I was hoping for slightly better to but based on your driving habits you can probably do better than the numbers they list.
Reply
Save
Like
B
Dermochelys said:
At first I was also surprised at that, but then I thought about how the CRV is based on the Civic, and the HR-V is getting a Civic engine, so maybe that's why they're so close. Personally, I think the HR-V looks better than a CR-V and I don't need all the space of the CR-V, so I'm still leaning more towards the HR-V.
Click to expand...

I believe from all the reviews that the CR-V surpasses all it's competitors. But dad- gum- it, I just can't get past it's mini-van looks. (If I was married with children, it would be different.) So if I didn't get the HR-V, I would be seriously looking at the RAV-4 which has more storage than a CR-V and I love it's looks.
Reply
Save
Like
E
They were originally talking about 40+ mpg but I guess they were still figuring out what Earth Dreams Technology was going to be and people were lying to each other to seem positive.
Reply
Save
Like
C
tossici said:
I'm a bit disappointed. but I guess I was wishing too much for something closer to 33/38. Still good numbers. Can't wait to see it at the auto show in a few weeks.
Click to expand...
I too am disappointed and also very confused. Can someone offer some informed logic as to why the HRV AWD, which is significantly smaller in body size and engine size than the CRV, and has less power than the CRV, would get almost the exact same gas milage as the CRV AWD?

I was very interested in the HRV AWD because I thought I would be trading the smaller size and reduced power of the HRV for higher gas milage and more maneuverability than the CRV AWD.

Losing 12 cubic foot of cargo space, 47 horsepower and 54 pound-feet of torque and not gaining in mpg makes no sense to me.

If we give up space and power and do not get an increase in mpg then what is the point? Is it just looks?

I thought the HRV might be the perfect compromise. I really dislike the look of the CRV, especially the back end, so when the HRV looked better; had a hatch, decent cargo space, and ground clearance; and was a available in AWD, I was ready to love it but but now...........I think I might be taking a look at the Mazda numbers.

If the HRV does not have sportier handling than the CRV, then I will probably check it off my list.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
1 - 20 of 73 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Honda HR-V Forum
The world's premier Honda HR-V forum discussing Honda’s Hi-Rider revolutionary vehicle.
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
2015-22 HR-V General Discussion HR-V Defects / Issues / Problems Electronics and Audio Honda HR-V Accessories & Add Ons Introductions
Top