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

It's easy for a car to measure how many times a wheel revolves. It's a little tougher to measure exactly how much fuel gets used.

Cruising at 3000 rpm means each cylinder fires 1500 times a minute. That's 6000 combustion events under the hood every minute- 100 every second. Measure the volume of those hundred squirts every second, keeping in mind that you're burning more going up a hill than on the flat and both gasoline and air's volume are affected by temperature.

But my gauge is off a smidgen after 500 miles because the evil marketers at Honda are a bunch of jerks.

 

The old fashioned analog gas gage was, at best, a WAG (Wild Ass Guess). The Fit systems (the dots in at the bottom and the numbers in Trip A and Trip B) are SWAGs (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses). Even calculations using GPS and Excel over a long period of time are close but not absolutely accurate.

 

Hey, all. Just got my Fit today and am excited to see what kind of number I can get. EPA in my Pickup isn't great and I have tires that's are 4" oversized and I still get low 20s so I'm expecting at the very least to be in the solid 40s consistently we'll see!

First tank is fun tank. All others after that are frugal and efficient tanks

 

Congrats ChazLyle. The fuel efficiency game is both a fun and challenging game to play, you will enjoy it with your Fit. Can't wait to see your results. Good luck!

 

My "dashboard mileage" often agrees with my calculator mileage, and sometimes it's actually lower. After the pump clicks off, I give it one more shot.

 

I know the onboard gauge isn't accurate BUT I just got 51 mpg on the way to the gym, in town, short trip, with some light traffic

Oh it's on! haha

Probably more like 40 something but not bad in town. May have upset some people engine braking up to a light or two, but oh well haha

 

Any tips on some lightweight wheels that don't hurt drag so much? Everything lightweight looks like a spider web and has to screw with aero.

 

Moon hubcaps are your best bet for streamlining the wheels, but I doubt that you'd see much of a difference.

https://www.google.com/search?q=moon...FctWPgod24IG-w

 

That's baseline tank The rest are the fun!

 

Thanks. I only meant that wheels with wide open spaces and few/thin spokes are not ideal. I'd like something Not like that, but still normal, lightweight wheels like konigs or weds.

 

Naw, I have no idea at what mileage the dealership filled it up so it won't be accurate ha. Second tank is baseline for me

 

I'm on my iPad, so cutting out extra text isn't very elegant.

I have my GPS connected to the OBD port. It give me info from the car's computer. I tried connecting my Android phone by using a splitter cable, but that doesn't work, unfortunately. One or the other might work - maybe - but not both.

 

Does a car get lower MPGs right after an oil change and/or tire rotation?
My most recent tank averaged 36.79 MPG (302.2miles / 8.214 GAL), which is quite a bit lower than most of my tanks up to date (see my Fuelly). The driving conditions were pretty similar to other tanks in which I've performed better. The only major difference was that approximately 80 miles into the tank I had the first oil change and tire rotation at the dealer - could one of these or both have been the culprit?? I'm looking forward to your opinions. I certainly don't want this MPG to be the new normal

 

Or, how about fender skirts and a boat tail.

I've never noticed any decrease due to either. You may want to make sure they put the right weight oil in?

 

The same thing happened to me! I went from getting 38-39 to getting 34-35. I didn't do tire rotation though, just oil change.

 

This is my first Fit, but I've had a lot of other vehicles, each of which I tracked every single fill up in a notebook specific to each one, and I've never had lower MPG after an oil change that I remember.

Is this one single tank, or a few making it a pattern? There are so many variables that I don't tend to worry if I have one lower tank vs having a few in a row.

 

Is it possible that when doing the tire rotation the dealer checked the tire pressures and knocked them down because they thought they were too high? Have you checked your tire pressures yourself since then?

 

That's a very valid point. I've always inflated my tires higher than the service depts do so I make it a practice to check all tires when I'm back from an appt just in case. I also lay a piece of cardboard down on my garage floor under the engine bay for a few days after I get back from an oil change, just in case.

 

It was a single tank from a place I've never gotten fuel from. Currently, I'm on the next tank and hope that my old pattern is re-established. If not, I'm going to be really peeved.

I did check the tire pressure after I got my low MPG reading (so after that tank had been used up), and they were all 1psi higher than what I had originally (they were 35 instead of my 34psi). Being a 1psi higher I would have expected even better MPG.

According to the dealer the weight oil is correct.

I'll see what happens during my next fuel up. It's too bad that I had finally gotten my overall average MPG in the 40s and now I'm at 39.9.

 

Note: Leave your ballpeen hammers in your tool box.


It is taken as common wisdom that aero slick, freshly washed and waxed car will coast further than a dirty brick of a car.


Sometime back Myth Busters did one of their tests on this theory. They got a nice clean car, brought it up to speed and let it coast to a stop. They then got the car normal dirty and did the same coast test. The dirty car went slightly further than the clean one, not enough to prove the theory. They did put a coating of "putty" on the car and dimpled the putty in a pattern similar to a golf ball. The car coasted significantly further than either the clean or dirty car. A golfer will tell you a dimpled ball will fly further than a ball with no dimples.


So to get maximum mileage from your Fit, dimple it all over in a golf ball pattern. (NO!! REALLY DON'T DO THAT)


it was not a gas mileage experiment, but an aerodynamic one. The weight of the "putty" would have reduced the mileage. I don't always agree with their findings, for instance "4-40" mileage experiment "proved" that windows down is more fuel efficient than windows up / ac on. At real highway speeds (60 mph and up), the windows down with make the interior of the car a large drag chute.


That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Just a little dig with the elbow for the fuel mileage obsessed.