Survey by Qualaroo
 New Posts FAQ Calendar Community Forum Actions Quick Links

# Thread: Honda City Mileage 18kpl , Myth or a Fact?

1. ## Honda City Mileage 18kpl , Myth or a Fact?

I have seen two honda city eco Fuel meters , one mostly driven on city showing 10.5 kpl, other mostly on highways showing 15 kpl.

A 600cc mira gives around 15-16kpl in city, How come a 1300cc give 18 kpl average?

2. Originally Posted by FarhanAnwarKhan
throw in a 2c engine in a city then it will give u 18km/l..........my swift gives upto 13km/l in city and on motorway gives 16-17km/l all depend on the right foot............
But i've heard that Swift has low fuel economy

3. Originally Posted by 5555
body weight of Honda city is very low lafafa hai
Well I guess here you compromise on your safety at the cost of saving fuel

4. So one thing is rightly obvious , 18kpl is not average it the max and that too on highways. You can visit fully.com where you can find worldwide database of user averages there this version average is 14 kpl that also proves this.

18kpl average is just boasting , if someone claims it tell that individual the meaning of 'Average' and to read elementry math and dictionary. (18kpl average means imho 14kpl min and 22 kpl max. which is certianly no the case here)

5. that mileage calculator in city is a big fat liar.

6. Originally Posted by bilalahsan
I have seen two honda city eco Fuel meters , one mostly driven on city showing 10.5 kpl, other mostly on highways showing 15 kpl.

A 600cc mira gives around 15-16kpl in city, How come a 1300cc give 18 kpl average?

aah sir g, I haven't replied properly on your thread yet but I guess you are actually concerned about the scenario so, here it goes.

As Xulfikar sir explained, Mileage doesn't necessarily depend upon "SEE SEE". It depends on several different factors like Power/Weight ratio, engine technology, type and quality of fuel etc.

Coming to an individual motorvehicle, it may depend upon tyre size, tyre type, air pressure, viscous drag, driving conditions, driving styles, engine maintenance and in some cases even the engine oil.

So the basis of you query is pretty pointless in its own regard.

Originally Posted by bilalahsan
Well I guess here you compromise on your safety at the cost of saving fuel
Not necessarily. I think Formula 1 cars are probably the lightest cars but they aren't UNSAFE.

If city is a light vehicle, it doesn't mean it'll kill the passengers in a crash while another car of the same class would've saved them. (Allah maaf kre)

Its a family sedan, not made for hot rodding or off roading. Its best for what its designed.

Originally Posted by bilalahsan
So one thing is rightly obvious , 18kpl is not average it the max and that too on highways. You can visit fully.com where you can find worldwide database of user averages there this version average is 14 kpl that also proves this.

18kpl average is just boasting , if someone claims it tell that individual the meaning of 'Average' and to read elementry math and dictionary. (18kpl average means imho 14kpl min and 22 kpl max. which is certianly no the case here)
Sir there are many users who have achieved 16-20KPL from there cars and Alhamdolillah I am one of them.

For example, I topped up my car's tank and drove around for 400kms. Now I decide to fill up again.

It takes 21L fuel to top it up again. Divided by the trip mileage, it obviously means that the car did 18KPL in one litre.

Thats how we calculate the mileage, that meter in the dash is a shashka, in every car produced in the world.

7. Originally Posted by RollOnBigMaMa
Its a family sedan, not made for hot rodding or off roading. Its best for what its designed.
....
For example, I topped up my car's tank and drove around for 400kms. Now I decide to fill up again.

It takes 21L fuel to top it up again.
Please Visit this to See that The City 2008+ gives average below 13 kpl, and 18 kpl as mentioned in last post , i just dont get it. You claim its a family car so load up your family in it , keep ac on and put some luggage in trunk and try your experiment again not as A loner sweating for economy without any load and trying to prove claims.

See this link with reliable data:-

Honda City ZX MPG Reports | Fuelly

8. Originally Posted by bilalahsan
Please Visit this to See that The City 2008+ gives average below 13 kpl, and 18 kpl as mentioned in last post , i just dont get it. You claim its a family car so load up your family in it , keep ac on and put some luggage in trunk and try your experiment again not as A loner sweating for economy without any load and trying to prove claims.

See this link with reliable data:-

Honda City ZX MPG Reports | Fuelly
Sir, check the above link. Its about City Auto transmission. And if you go in details then it is 1.5L. Here all are talking about City Manual 1.3L.
Have you own a City Manual (2009-2012) ??? or ever drive it ??

9. ## mileage

You can check vehicle of Pakistani owner that shows fill details and surely that is 1300 cc because 1500 model is n/a in pk. Whose average is also reported as around 12-13 kpl. I request you too start your fill tracking in fuelly site and share it with everyone !! and yes I have driven one and its a good car and also know individuals who complain about its ride quality and power starvation

10. Originally Posted by bilalahsan
You can check vehicle of Pakistani owner that shows fill details and surely that is 1300 cc because 1500 model is n/a in pk. Whose average is also reported as around 12-13 kpl. I request you too start your fill tracking in fuelly site and share it with everyone !! and yes I have driven one and its a good car and also know individuals who complain about its ride quality and power starvation
What do you mean by power starvation? (coming back to the mileage part)

11. @ Rollonbigmama The car has a very efficient no doubt..But the lightweight i am reffering to tin-dabba body..If you observe pre 2000 cars they had very solid bodies with high impact resistance..Like daewoo,corolla 1988,civic 96 etc..

Question is why is there big difference in today's ride and those models in terms of substandard body work..The reference of f1 cars dosent apply on a commuting car..That car has exceptional ground clearance giving it good balance,,use of extensive composites which have rigidity greater than metal..And the cars we own have bodies worse and are thus called the TEEN DABBAS for sure

12. my vitz isgiving me 15km /l in city............21 km/l in long....and i am HAPPYYY

13. Originally Posted by devilskreed
@ Rollonbigmama The car has a very efficient no doubt..But the lightweight i am reffering to tin-dabba body..If you observe pre 2000 cars they had very solid bodies with high impact resistance..Like daewoo,corolla 1988,civic 96 etc..

Question is why is there big difference in today's ride and those models in terms of substandard body work..The reference of f1 cars dosent apply on a commuting car..That car has exceptional ground clearance giving it good balance,,use of extensive composites which have rigidity greater than metal..And the cars we own have bodies worse and are thus called the TEEN DABBAS for sure
Sir, this is called "technology" :p
In old model (90's) engine has to work hard to push the huge n heavy body, thus fuel averages/performance seems poor. Also those heavy bodies doesn't help passengers or drivers in a crash thus causes casualties. New cars have g-con bodies, light weight with perfect ratios. Helps a lot in case of accident. Car may crash but passengers will be safe. For example you see Honda City crash, if it hits from back many chances are that its front bumpers, fender may damage, by dividing the force into many parts thus helps passengers from casualties or injuries.
While in case of old cars, you see minimum loss of cars but at the cost of casualties or injuries. Cars hits from back and driver comes out hitting the windscreen.

So light weight doesn't mean bad. You are more important than metals.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

14. Well it's possible. It can give 18km/l on long with light foot easily.

I'm using 2 city's in home. one is 2010(60k driven) and other one is 2011(28k driven).
My 2010 gives me exact 13km/l without AC in city driving with normal + heavy foot and car has 205/60/r15 tyres and a muffler is also installed.
It gives 16 on long with AC and 3 passengers on board with boot full of luggage and it was mix drive (highway + motorway). on highway I was keeping my car at 100-120 that too in 4th gear couple of times.
On motorway I even touched 170 couple of times but kept it constant on 130 most of the time but it gave me same average.

2011 with stock conditions gives 14.5km/l with normal + heavy foot in city driving without AC. haven't checked it on long but I'm sure it can give 17-18km/l easily.
Hope it gets cleared.

15. i got 17.6 while going to gujranwala on gt road

16. Somebody please post Average fuel consumption plz distributed over at least one month of operation!!

17. Originally Posted by civic7
Sir, this is called "technology" :p
In old model (90's) engine has to work hard to push the huge n heavy body, thus fuel averages/performance seems poor. Also those heavy bodies doesn't help passengers or drivers in a crash thus causes casualties. New cars have g-con bodies, light weight with perfect ratios. Helps a lot in case of accident. Car may crash but passengers will be safe. For example you see Honda City crash, if it hits from back many chances are that its front bumpers, fender may damage, by dividing the force into many parts thus helps passengers from casualties or injuries.
While in case of old cars, you see minimum loss of cars but at the cost of casualties or injuries. Cars hits from back and driver comes out hitting the windscreen.

So light weight doesn't mean bad. You are more important than metals.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
I am a materials engineer by profession and using aluminium lightweight alloy does not justify a light weight car..All models built in pakistan are not crash test approved..ANd they are dangerous..I once banged my woo in a city idsi(that car came in front--wrong lane) and it got preety messed up and what happened to my car was a defaced bumper from sides which got repaired in minimal charges..even on a 96 honda you can get economy of 12+ Km/l..Using lightweight materials with no impact strength for fuel economy is just an excuse.

So what i can say is that those old models serve a better purpose in saving your life than locally assembled soundless rides...Seats belts were used then and even today..and they do pretty well in terms of crash from behind..External rigidity of latest car is 0 which is dangerous..JDMs have better build

But still i am lf buying a city(no alternatives)

18. Originally Posted by devilskreed
I am a materials engineer by profession and using aluminium lightweight alloy does not justify a light weight car..All models built in pakistan are not crash test approved..ANd they are dangerous..I once banged my woo in a city idsi(that car came in front--wrong lane) and it got preety messed up and what happened to my car was a defaced bumper from sides which got repaired in minimal charges..even on a 96 honda you can get economy of 12+ Km/l..Using lightweight materials with no impact strength for fuel economy is just an excuse.

So what i can say is that those old models serve a better purpose in saving your life than locally assembled soundless rides...Seats belts were used then and even today..and they do pretty well in terms of crash from behind..External rigidity of latest car is 0 which is dangerous..JDMs have better build

But still i am lf buying a city(no alternatives)
Dear,

You need to understand mechanics and dynamics to understand the impact of heavy and light weight bodies. Civic7 has put it correctly already. Heavy body cars have been modified all over the world because in case of crash, strong body will transfer the impact suddenly to the passengers which will result in serious injuries. This has been replaced with light weight outer bodies which absorb the initial impact and strong inner core bodies which stop the injury to the passenger. This is being followed by all the manufacturers world over. Honda cars have same specifications as the international cars(almost...) and they are crash tested. You can see the crash testing videos to learn about the technology.

19. I got 598 in 32 Litres on my way to Multan at an avg of 18.68Kpl on my city 2001 Exis Automatic

20. I get 15.5 km/l on long route and my car is tuned for cng and not petrol.. im guessing il get around 17 with iridium plugs and tuning on petrol..
I had 2 people and luggage..lots of it.. trunk was full and backseat also had luggage.. although ac was switched off.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

21. Originally Posted by devilskreed
@ Rollonbigmama The car has a very efficient no doubt..But the lightweight i am reffering to tin-dabba body..If you observe pre 2000 cars they had very solid bodies with high impact resistance..Like daewoo,corolla 1988,civic 96 etc..

Question is why is there big difference in today's ride and those models in terms of substandard body work..The reference of f1 cars dosent apply on a commuting car..That car has exceptional ground clearance giving it good balance,,use of extensive composites which have rigidity greater than metal..And the cars we own have bodies worse and are thus called the TEEN DABBAS for sure
Sir you are a materials engineer of course, BUT, I find it highly unlikely that you have ever studied the consequences of a high speed impact.
The cars you have put forward as instances are for sure stronger bodied than the new ones. But the scenario in which YOU consider them strong is, how should I word it, useless?

What you're saying is that if a civic 95 crashes/bangs into a city 2013/civic 2013, the latter one will probably crumple to death while the civic 1995 MIGHTY MUSCULAR will survive the crash with probably a bent fender or a broken bumper. Am I right?

From a certain POV, it looks a monetary benefit to me.

Sir let me tell you that modern cars are designed to perfection for distributing almost every little and enormous force generated as a result of a high speed crash. In the past, people used to be killed by the forces alone, the bodies didn't crush them inside.

The results of a TAYT MAZBOOT MUGHAL STEEL body are for example, in case of a head on collision, the engine will rip apart the firewall area and turn the passengers into dead meat. Trust me I have seen many impacts like this.

However in case of such impact in a modern car, its chassis will crumple, so will the engine and several components of the engine bay to help the passenger cabin stay intact.

I repeat again that these are compact sedans desgined to withstand impacts at normal speeds. If you swap a bloody all motor in them and start track racing, I am sorry you WILL DIE. No company claims impacts at such speeds.

Ever seen a mercedes CLS 550 crashed? I bet NO. For your eyes only, call this a teen dabba https://www.pakwheels.com/forums/spo...cked-cls-550-a

Originally Posted by bilalahsan
Please Visit this to See that The City 2008+ gives average below 13 kpl, and 18 kpl as mentioned in last post , i just dont get it. You claim its a family car so load up your family in it , keep ac on and put some luggage in trunk and try your experiment again not as A loner sweating for economy without any load and trying to prove claims.

See this link with reliable data:-

Honda City ZX MPG Reports | Fuelly

Originally Posted by bilalahsan
You can check vehicle of Pakistani owner that shows fill details and surely that is 1300 cc because 1500 model is n/a in pk. Whose average is also reported as around 12-13 kpl. I request you too start your fill tracking in fuelly site and share it with everyone !! and yes I have driven one and its a good car and also know individuals who complain about its ride quality and power starvation
Bhai jaan you don't seem to believe almost 10 people over here who are using this car in their daily lives rather you are producing Internet results and trying t falsify practical examples with them. This is wrong.

WHAT IF I post here a honda city idsi 2007's example which did 19KPL with a trunk full of luggage and 4 persons on board? To add to it, the drive included a steep climb as well.

Phir kya kahen gy aap bhai?

What we're saying is a result of 217+3=220 thousand and 60+20=80 thousand kilometers driving experience respectively. Isn't that a bit too much for a practical thing?

Saadi bro's car even has CNG in it. Come on sir, share your own experience if you have ever driven and kept a honda city for daily use.

Originally Posted by devilskreed
I am a materials engineer by profession and using aluminium lightweight alloy does not justify a light weight car..All models built in pakistan are not crash test approved..ANd they are dangerous..I once banged my woo in a city idsi(that car came in front--wrong lane) and it got preety messed up and what happened to my car was a defaced bumper from sides which got repaired in minimal charges..even on a 96 honda you can get economy of 12+ Km/l..Using lightweight materials with no impact strength for fuel economy is just an excuse.

So what i can say is that those old models serve a better purpose in saving your life than locally assembled soundless rides...Seats belts were used then and even today..and they do pretty well in terms of crash from behind..External rigidity of latest car is 0 which is dangerous..JDMs have better build

But still i am lf buying a city(no alternatives)
Allah maaf kre sir, Allah kre aap kabhi bhi kisi puraani tight car main real accident main involve na hon. Otherwise you won't be saying all this.

And WHAT? Are you effing kidding me bhai? Do you even know what you just said? PKDM bodies aren't crash test approved? HAHAHAHA thanks a million for the GREAT GRAND LAUGH of 2013.

Page 2 of 9 First 1234 ... Last

## User Tag List

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•