In the end, what's important is how much it's costing you. In most cars using E10 (10% ethanol) increases fuel usage by around 3%

OK that means that if the price of E10 is 3% or more less, then you are ahead. Otherwise, you are not. It doesn't matter about actual MPG if you are spending less money.

Over here we pay around A$0.03/litre less for E10. That means that at a total price of around A$1.00/litre it is even money either way. As the price goes up, better off using regular unleaded.

We have incredibly volatile gas prices here, so the question of whether it's worth using E10 keeps changing. Of course some places it's all there is unless you pay the extra for Premium(no real benefit in a Jazz/Fit), and sometimes even that has ethanol in it.

 

Right now, my meter says 44.6 MPG for the current tank of gas (200+ miles). I'm expecting the calculated value to come in at 39-40 MPG ('09 Sport MT-1300 mi.).

 

I'm not impressed with the Fit's highway mileage, especially in hilly terrain. I've done two things to my Fit to lower the mileage, I put on 205/50-16 tires (which make the car handle and brake much better), and I have a Yakima roof rack with a fairing. Before I made those changes, I did a 350 mile round trip from Phoenix to Flagstaff on I-17 (6000' elevation gain). I set the cruise between 75 and 80 mph. Round trip mileage, as measured by actual fuel consumption and both known and recorded mileage was 35.2 mpg. This compares to my '98 BMW M3 which has done the same trip at 28 mpg. Why? Because the Fit is underpowered for mountainous terrain and also has a high drag coefficient. On the two major grades going to Flagstaff, the Fit has to drop to 3rd to maintain 75 mph (over 5000 rpm). By comparison, my M3 easily handles those grades with low throttle angles in 5th gear.

If this road had a 65 mph speed limit (instead of 75 mph) and were flat, I suspect the Fit would get over 40 mpg, while the BMW's mileage would stay under 30 mpg.

In true city driving, I see no better than 32 mpg as measured by fuel consumption and recorded mileage. My MPG meter in the car is +4 mpg all the time, as is everyone else's. Regardless, I'm happy with the car and while the fuel economy could be better, it's OK by me.

BTW, adding the tires and the rack (w/o a bike in it) take away about 3 mpg from what I can tell, in general.

 

My mileage is obtained by driving at 55 MPH or so (that's the speed limit on all non-interstate roads in New York) and, of course, we don't have the Rockies here to contend with. The car is new, so I don't have any long term data yet, either.

There are lots of reasons for mileage variation, and I think that the Fit, being a small car, with a small motor, is going to vary much more depending on these factors.

 

I would have expected fatter tyres and a rack to make your mileage worse. the rack (even an aerodynamic one) increases your frontal area, and your wider tyres increase rolling resistance because of the larger contact patch.

We have some rather steep hills on the freeway here and I have had no trouble climbing them at 120km/hr in 5th gear. Is yours auto or manual? The auto Fit has a very tall 5th gear that gives great highway mileage until you get to a hill. the manual Fit has a much lower 5th gear that is more like 4th in most cars. It drives like a close ratio gearbox rather than the 4+overdrive you usually get.

 

Got my highest ever last Thursday 47.3 actual like 51.8 on the gauge

but the devil is in the details.......

It was driving from about 60 miles NW of MN twin cities to the top center of WI
I was on county and state roads during some snow/freezing rain, 40-45 in the corners 50-55 in the straights plus rolling hills so I was in DEFCO much of the time by default ++++ I had a pretty good tail wind

returning to the Kenosha area was another story, 70-80 MPH with moderate head/side wind only got 36.4 mpg,

 

Mine varies between 34.5 and 36.5 mpg, measured, and that's with a mix of city driving, stop-and-go highway driving, and wide-open highway driving. The car has about 3k on it, and I don't hesitate to open the throttle almost all the way when I get the chance (which isn't often, however, this being the tri-state region).

 

I checked my latest tank of gas today ('09 Sport MT). The computer said 44.5 MPG, and I calculated 39.8 MPG (308 miles on 7.74 gallons). Ironically, I've been pushing the engine pretty hard since the 1000 mile mark, and this is my best tankful yet! The engine is definately starting to loosen up.

By way of comparison, the last 2000 miles with my previous car ('02 Dodge Neon 5-speed MT) I averaged 32.6 MPG over the same roads.

 

idk whats up with my driving. i drive slow and get like 35 and since ive been driving like a maniac its been goin up

 

I guess that's just our cars' way of telling us to enjoy them more and fret about mileage less LOL.

 

pretty amazing... this thing is crap

 

base manual. 200 pounds cargo. 34psi. 34 mpg. 800 miles so far.

 

Just filled up my Fit for the second time so now I have an accurate fuel consumption value:

601.4km on 35.405L, 5.887L/100km = 39.941MPG (US)

Reading on the car was 5.4L/100km.

 

I had a tail wind and I know the computer is off, but still pretty cool that's over 60 miles per gallon (imperial gallons) for 119.9 kilometres

 

[quote=hoss10;6308

I had a tail wind and I know the computer is off, but still pretty cool that's over 60 miles per gallon (imperial gallons) for 119.9 kilometres[/quote]
fyi for usa ppl 1 imperial gal is 1.2 usa gal