Those looking for information, photos, specs and road tests of the 2006
Civic hybrid, but also of the other models (sedan, coupe, Si) can have
a look at these two posts on TH. They are basically hubs where links to
tons of other websites are gathered.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005...e_on_the_2.php

This one above is more about the photos, specs, test drives, etc.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005...mation_abo.php

This one is more about the engine of the new Civic hybrid (what
changed, new modes, efficiency, etc) and has links to info about the
1.8l non-hybrid engine.

Hope I'm not breaking NG etiquette by posting this here, but I figured
that this was the place to find people interested about the new Civic.

Mike

Why not test the vehicles in a wind tunnel-like situation so their
co-efficient of drag comes into play?

(top posting is generally frowned upon, but i'll let it pass this
time)

wind tunnels are expensive, just in rental fees. second, they're just
no that big. third, all wind tunnels are static, the vehicle is held
in place with force bars, which record the forces acting ont he
vehicle when the tunnel is active (info courtesy a riend of the wifes,
who runs the windtunnel at Cranfield university) There is no way to
measure the effect the wind would have on the load of the carthe car
is not progressing, and as such having to work against the wind force.
if its not moving, the winds not affecting the milage, and its
basically the same deal as with any other static test.

nice idea though, good thinking.. a half mile wind tunnel might be more the answer.

It sounds like drag (not just coefficient, but entire magnitude) of drag is
already factored in. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml says:
"The energy required to move the rollers can be adjusted to account for
aerodynamic forces and the vehicle's weight."

The coefficient of drag is just that, a coefficient relative to a "bluff
body" (flat surface) of the same frontal area. Drag is the actual retardive
force.

Mike

Another unnecessary limitation of current tests is that cars are
placed in weight categories instead of factoring in their actual
weight. Apparently this is why the Accord Hybrid previously had no
spare tire in 2005 and when they added one in 2006 the milage
estimates dropped noticeably. The extra weight put it into the next
category and it was severely punished.

I've heard this argument before, but when I went to the EPA site that
describes the testing protocol (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/), it made
no mention of weight classes (other than being exempted altogether if
your vehicle weighs more than 8500 lbs). It does mention different
classes based on interior volume, but the testing protocol appears to
be the same for all classes.

Do you have any reference material/website link that can give me info
on the different weight classes?

This is from a Road & Track article on the 2005 Accord Hybrid:

http://tinyurl.com/lvcyv

Less sun and storage. No sunroofs allowed, because when it came down
to crunch time, the Accord Hybrid was on the verge of being bumped up
another EPA weight class and something had to go. [Goes on to note
absence of spare tire also.]


EPA documents refer to weight classes in this description of the
milage tests.

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENE...ay-01/g451.htm

Inertia weight class means the class, which is a group of test
weights, into which a vehicle is grouped based on its loaded vehicle
weight in accordance with the provisions of part 86 of this chapter.


Here is the table itself. Note that at around 3500 pounds the classes
are in increments of 125 pounds. So, at some point, one more pound
counts as 125.

http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/4...0/wcd080f1.asp

Thanks, Spaz_pop Great Site. I'll have to register my Accord, which
is my second Honda Hybrid. I had a Civic CVT, but my wife didn't like
the small car ride. Nor, since she was brought up with a 4-speed
could she ever get over/use to the "slipping clutch" feel of the CVT.

We're batting around the idea of an IMA Accord as well; mileage isn't
as great as it could be (if they offerd it as a 4-cyl vs. the 6-cyl),
but it's also nice having the extra power and cabin space.

Did you buy an '05 or '06? I'm curious as to the reduction in EPA
mileage estimates on the '06 vs. '05- it wouldn't seem that the extra
80-90 pounds that a spare and sunroof adds would decrease mileage by
that much. There are claims that it is just matter of weight class;
the extra poundage kicked it into another class, which reduced mileage
figures.

I did take an '06 for a test drive on the perimeter around Athens,
Ga.- got it up to 65, set the cruise control, and let it run for 15
miles. It averaged 38.6 mpg on the gently rolling terrain. Mieage
was much worse in the stop/go traffic back to the dealership,
though...

I have outfitted my '05 with a spare at mucho $$$$. Currently getting
the EPA 29 "in town" but that is not a lot of true stop and go.
Pretty straight shot to work on a limited access at 55, but the humps
are enough to drop it out of 3-cyl mode. I get over 37 mpg on
interstates from your neighboring state to the west traveling to the
neighbor in the east to see the grandkids.

Sunroof would have been nice... I think the calculation method for
hybrids was or is changing to assure the same charge in the battery at
the finish as at the start. (Not sure if it was a requirement in the
past.)

I wish I still had the Civic, also, for around town, but the wife
would not let go of having a (German) American car and trade hers in.

If I could only have one and it was my trip car - I take the Accord.
The Hybrids are status not $$$ savings, anyway, for the next 5 years -
no matter whose it is. Maybe then the cost penalty will lessen and
the technology will improve.

TTFN