A couple comments on the Fit from some review sites:

Honda Boosts 2015 Fit's Gas Mileage - KickingTires

"LX trim levels are rated higher because they're the optimized trim level for fuel economy with an aerodynamic underbody covering and less weight compared to the EX/EX-L trim levels."

I've read this elsewhere as well. Honda smoothed out or added to the undercarriage sheet metal on the LX to cut down on turbulence there which improves fuel economy. Why they wouldn't do this for all the Fits is very puzzling.


Also:

2015 Honda Fit Gas Mileage - The Car Connection

"It's also quite interesting that when equipped with the continuously variable automatic transmission (CVT), the Fit gets considerably better mileage .... Part of that is due to the reason that Honda decided to go with lower gear ratios for the most part for the manual, thinking that it will be the choice for driving enthusiasts, not frugal types. We don't necessarily agree with this, and we think that it limits the manual's appeal.

The manual is now a six-speed, but Honda has, for instance, decided to go with a top ratio that's about the same, maybe slightly lower, than last year's fifth gear. That results in the engine spinning nearly 4,000 rpm at 80 mph—while the CVT at that speed is turning well below 3,000 rpm."

If the manual is spinning at 4000 RPM at 80 mph while the CVT is only spinning at 3000 RPM then I would think that the CVT will be running a lot quieter at highway speeds which would be a big advantage for the CVT over the manual, in addition to having better fuel economy, yes/no?

 

Yes lower engine rpms will lead to lower db of noise transmitted into the cabin. As well as higher fuel economy due to the engine not having to work as hard to maintain the same speed.

 

The undercarriage has a large/wide plastic piece(s) that cover the entire bottom of the car. It's interesting to see for me since I've never seen anything like this before. It's hard plastic that feels very similar to the plastic piece you have in your wheel well area.

Not sure why they simply didn't add it to all the models. The lightweight and gas mileage was the nail in the coffin for me. And that it's the cheapest model as well.

 

Nope... LX 6MT cheaper...

 

EX-L has more features and adding the undercarriage would hurt their bottom line. People that want the features of the EX-L will still buy the EX-L despite the lack of the undercarriage or will add it later.

I am glad Honda kept the MT low ratio. If they made it longer might as well go buy a Nissan, Honda is trying to stay true to Honda but everyone is so soft now and concerned about 1-2 mpg people complain.

They should just come out with an Si model for enthusiasts. That'd be the smart move.

My old Toyota has lower gear ratios than the Fit, at 70 mph it's at like 4k. It's fine.

 

Damn it....didn't get to correct my post quick enough. Oh well! You win!

 

I work for Honda so I better get stuff like that right....

 

I was dead set on getting the m/t, but since the dealer had none to test drive, I tried the CVT, and actually liked it okay. Found this site and read about the gear ratios being high, so went back and tried the CVT again, using the paddle shifter to "simulate" 3100 rpm at 65 mph. Decided it was a bit too buzzy for my tastes (my commute is mostly 55mph, but I also do several 6-16 hour trips per year). So it's a CVT, then.

Dealer said my car will be in this Saturday, but my wife is out of town until Monday... Patience, grasshopper!

es

 

sooo..

what kind of real world mileage are we seeing from the LX? EX? EX-L?