Trip to Maryland tripped up fuel figures for the better

ELLICOTT CITY, MD.— Another pothole on the road to fuel-economy ratings:

The story starts with the fact I’m an organizer and judge in the Canadian Green Car Award, an independent environmental honour now in its third year.

This time around, we’ve added a sixth award category — “fun green vehicle” — to the list which already includes best electric, plug-in hybrid, conventional hybrid, internal combustion and three-row family hauler.

The new category is intended as a reminder that driving green cars can be a pleasure; even exciting.

We’ve set strict eligibility criteria: A weight-to-horsepower ratio of seven or lower, or a zero-to-100 acceleration time of eight seconds or faster, and a combined city-highway fuelconsumption score of 8.5 L/100 km , or lower, on Natural Resources Canada’s new five-cycle test.

One that I thought might make it is the 2015 Honda Civic Si Coupe. It zips from zero to 100 in 6.5 seconds and boasts a weight-to-power ratio of 6.53.

At a starting price of $26,750 it’s also within reach of many buyers — significant, since the award recognizes that vehicles can only provide environmental benefits if they sell in large numbers. So far, so good. But, then, I checked the fuel-consumption numbers: Oops: the Civic Si is rated at 10.8 litres per 100 kilometres of city driving; 7.6, highway and 9.4, combined — nearly a litre over the award’s limit.

Still, it’s in the ballpark, so I decided to check it out, if only to help me assess the cars that do make the “fun” grade. I was booked to attend a conference in Ellicott City, near Baltimore, and figured the 1,500-kilometre round trip would give me a good take on the Si.

It’s an entertaining car, especially considering the relatively low price. It’s certainly more fun to drive than 500-horsepower behemoths, which must be constantly, frustratingly reined in to avoid stunt-driving speeds. Some critics complain the chassis isn’t up to scratch and that, at 174 lb.-ft., it lags competitors in torque. But I wasn’t evaluating it for the track, and while I drove it relatively hard, I couldn’t approach its limits driving on well-patrolled public roads. On those terms, it’s an enjoyable bargain — nimble in city conditions, sticky on highway curves, offering taut steering and great road feel, and boasting more than enough acceleration and speed for any non-race- track conditions. I was particularly impressed by its comfort over the long distance. Despite the light weight — 1,338 kilograms — and stiff suspension, I emerged feeling refreshed, rather than beaten up. My main beef is the six-speed manual gearbox, which felt a little slow and stiff, especially shifting from first to second. Now, the issue: The fuel economy score for the trip, and a few errands around Toronto, was 7.5 L/100 km, which is below even the official highway rating. While much of my trip was on the open road, considerable stretches crawled through towns, and it included more than an hour in stopand-go traffic jams each way. As well, on the expressway portions, I tended to speeds that, the experts say, impose a 15- to 20-percent fuel-consumption penalty. In short, I should have done worse than the official rating. Instead, I did better. I’m not yet sure why. There’s no special test cycle for performance cars. All vehicles follow the same, quite conservative patterns.

Even the 10-minute “aggressive” test averages just 78 km/hand exceeds 110 for less than two minutes. I was certainly more aggressive than that.

As for the Green Car Award, since we need set benchmarks, not individual experiences, we do have to stick with the official numbers. But further checking might lead us to adjust the criteria.

Mainly, though, all this leaves me wondering if the new system is overestimating fuel consumption in some or many cases — which would be ironic after all the carping I’ve done about how the previous test method turned fuel guzzlers into sippers.