I'm getting ready to head to Raleigh. I'll report back this evening around 1830. I'm excited to see how the added 9psi compares to the first trip. Chat later.

 

just curious--was your tpms light on before you had tires inflated? my light goes on at major changes in temperature--fall to winter, etc. so about 3- 4 times a year.

 

I find keeping my tires a bit higher than standard psi beneficial in several ways - more even wear rather than rounding the shoulders from cornering, lower rolling resistance, which then helps MPG of course. Been using General Altimax HP's, great treadlife, handling & grip, highly directional tread. I run them at 45 psi. Also no carcass out-of-roundness balance issues. Worst I ever had were Goodyear Viva II's, could not be balanced, rims were verified true and un-bent. Complete rubbish.

 

That's exactly what happened in my case. Or first coom night and bamb, TPMS light.

Okay so the numbers are in from todays trip ILM-RDU-ILM. I got 36.4mpg at the same 75mph. So low tires was DEF the issue. I appreciate everyones help. This is why forums related to the car you own is so very helpful. I had an issue with the B/T which i'll start another thread about.

Again THANK YOU ALL!!!

 

You've just gotten back to the factory's soft ride spec is all- you don't have extra psi until you're over the sidewall number. My OE Dunlops are at 44 and anything less feels like I'm wading through a swamp.

 

Depends upon your driving... I've achieved as high as 56mpg, but in regular driving I get between 34-35mpg. I say give your car a couple more breakin miles. Mine didn't start performing well until I hit like 25,000 miles

 

Glad to see you got it straightened out.

Now we need to figure out why your tires got all the way down to 26psi. I would suggest buying a good, accurate tire guage and checking them regularly. i had a problem since my cars tend to sit so I bought a portable compressor from Harbor Freight as well as a Moroso tire guage

 

I didn't see it mentioned, but another thing that seems to have an effect on gas mileage is outside air temperature. I've noticed that in the winter when the temp drops below about 50 degrees I lose a couple miles per gallon.

-Dustin

 

I explained this. warm weather went very cool dropping psi.

 

if you don't have your own compressor, a handy tip is just to always fill up a little higher than you think you need, especially if you're coming in with warm tires to a gas station.

Then the next day, you can get a true cold temp reading. It's easy to let some air out, a bit more of a hassle to put more air in.

 

That doesn't happen overnight

But sounds like you weren't checking your PSI regularly so a slow creep over time is more of a realistic explanation

I live near the ocean and can have 20-30 degree fluctutations daily and will attest that it causes a slow drop over a number of weeks.

 

I also had meh gas mileage on my first road trip (this is my 3rd fit and its gotten the worst)
I drive a 2013 Base MT. I drove at 85 mph and got about 28-29mpg on my way to cali from az. I picked up this one less than 3 weeks ago from the dealer so all the tires were inflated correctly and it only had 35k on the car.

Last time on my 2012 Base AT, i got 31-33 on my way to northern cali.. Kinda confused because it was a lot of uphill driving and winds

 

You do understand the m/t revs 1000-1500rpm higher than auto. The fit radio's for manual is kind of like 90's BMW 3 series trannies. They had no over drive. I expect the manual to return the mileage you got. Auto's these days return better mpg than manual.

 

burning too much gas going at 85 mph. theres your answer. go 60-65 and ud have much better fuel consumption.

 

Most of that is not even a little true.

1.) The Fit does have an overdrive, 5th gear is overdriven in the GD/GE.

2.) The manual gets better MPG than the auto. You can see that in threads here/fuelly/etc. Ms. 410b and I both drive Fits, with roughly the same commute, mine more stop and go than hers in fact, and very similar driving habits (slow/minimal braking/etc.). She's averaged 33 MPG since buying the car and I've averaged 38 MPG, and she had an extra month of warm weather and its great mileage over my car.

If you don't like my GD v. GE comparison, over the >2 years/20k miles I owned my GD, I averaged 38 MPG with its excellent 5MT.

This. 85 MPH is a great way to burn gas very quickly.

 

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.

I don't drive on the EPA test cycle, I don't drive 1/4 mile, and I don't stop accelerating when I hit 60. Most cars are built to perform as well as possible in those areas because they make for great numbers in commercials- and autos generally do better in them because the entire system is optimized for results inside very specific parameters that don't exist in real life.

There's more to life than sales brochures and Powerpoint presentations about gear ratios: there's a place where the rubber meets the road, in a very literal sense. People like waving around fancy math and test results that "prove" something but doesn't bear out in real life. Generally the people who do this are touting something that claims to do the hard thinking for you and can magically make everything better- if only you don't look at real results. Like automatic transmissions.

Even manuals are built with ratios to look good on those tests, but at least with a manual I don't have to be a prisoner to a drivetrain that only performs for those benchmarks- I still get to drive the car and have a lot to say about how the power gets put down. I've got two more fill ups to finish out my first year with this car, and right now I'm just below 44.8 mpg on the year. Not bad for the drivetrain that doesn't score as high on the EPA test as the automatic. I don't think my numbers would be quite so good in an automatic, whatever test results you care to quote.

 

Okay understood but all that said, you really think the L15 manual doing 70mph at over 3000rpm is going to burn less than the auto turning at 2200rpm at the same speed? Sure city mpg would favor the manual. I've had 14 Honda Acura products with every car being 5spd/6spd until the last 3 being post spinal cord injury so auto.

 

RPM is not as important as engine load when it comes to economy. The exponential losses at high speed are more due to drag than RPM. You could see this in real time just by accelerating in 5th from a low speed/low rev situation and watching the MPG meter.

Even if the Fit had a longer top gear, I don't think fuel economy would improve all that much. If Honda was able to get better cruising economy just by putting in a longer fifth/sixth gear while maintaining the peppiness in 1-4 with a low final drive, I think they would have done that.

It's not really a fair comparison, a trip to AZ and a trip to Norcal. The atmospheric conditions are different and will effect your economy. I just drove from Norcal to Socal and back this weekend, cruising 70-75 with passing bursts up to 85 and I returned ~36mpg, this is including city driving and traffic. This is with an M/T.

 

There you go again, desperately trying to limit the parameters of the test to find somewhere, anywhere, where your math can show that an automatic can do something better than a driver. Your automatic is designed for life on a dyno- but real life isn't on a dyno. It's on a road with hills, curves, weather and traffic.

On a highway, maintaining a 70 mph average speed, I could try to get good mileage with an automatic- as much as it would let me. Or I could drive the car myself and actually get good mileage. And when I want to dart somewhere I can do that too, because the part that transmits the engine's power to the road doesn't second guess me and doesn't waste time thinking. It just does what it's told- and if I tell it I want economy, I can get it.

 

I have found the Fit to be quite sensitive to altitude.

I live in Wichita, Kansas and took a 2009 Fit automatic to Colorado for a Labor Day weekend vacation two and a half years ago. Temperatures were generally at shirtsleeves level, with A/C use necessary for comfort at low altitudes where humidity was typically higher. Because I drove two-lane for the vast majority of the journey, the car hardly saw 75 MPH Interstate speeds. Tires were at label pressures.

The rolling average meter function was showing MPG climbing into the high thirties in the plains of western Kansas and eastern Colorado, but I peaked out at 47.6 MPG and got 570 miles on one tank when I reached parts of southwestern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico where altitudes are consistently above 5000 feet. At home, where it sees mostly city service, this Fit usually averages 33 MPG.

I have not tried sustained cruising at 75 MPH in this Fit. The usual rule of thumb is that aerodynamic drag increases with the square of speed up to about 100 MPH, and then with speed thereafter.