Can someone explain Trip A and Trip B?

 

They track how many miles your gone since you last cleared them. A lot of people suggest resetting trip A every time you refill the gas tank, and trip B every time you change your oil.

 

On my EX, I use Trip B exclusively for refills to track mileage per tank. That leaves Trip A open for other things -- tracking individual trips, multiple tanks, etc. I used Trip A for my first tank or so but switched because I wanted the flexibility to track multiple trips from the mileage info screen, and that screen only tracks Trip A for whatever reason.

 

I thought Trip B was the whole mileage and Trip A was individual trips. Do I need to add the two for my total milesge? (I'm not near the manual.)

 

And whats the two different average mile per miles? What are each measuring. Cause theres. Always a difference when i check them.

 

I think they are the MPG since you cleared that trip. Maybe clear both at the same time, and then check it a day or two later?

 

We have two trip odometers, Trip A and Trip B. Both track mileage and average MPG as determined by the Fit's computer. They are identical. But only Trip A data is logged to my EX's info screen (sorry not near my car so I don't know exactly what it's called).

Let’s say you take your car on vacation. You can use Trip A to track the mileage/MPG for the entire trip from Chicago to Salt Lake City and Trip B to track mileage/MPG on points in transit, say between the great Nebraska cities of Omaha and Sydney. When you’re not on vacation, you can use the trip meters to track mileage/MPG between fuel fillups, your house to grandma’s, your house to work, work to your girlfriend’s house, etc.

I use Trip B to track gas mileage; I zero it out every time I fill up. On the next tank, I look at mileage driven and gallons used and do the math to find the MPG for that tank, which is usually is lower than the MPG readout from the Fit computer. Some people like to track their mileage/fuel costs using logbooks or smartphone apps (that's what Fuelly is I think) but I'm more casual about it.

I use Trip A for other purposes, mostly because previous data is logged to the info screen and you can use that to determine differences in MPG. For example, a few weeks ago I had to take a short trip on the interstate and wanted to track the MPG, so I zeroed out Trip A at the start of my trip and watched as it logged MPG data in real time on the info screen. On the way back home, I zeroed it out again and went 10 mph slower to see how it affected my MPG.

Nabil said many people use Trip A for mileage per tank and Trip B for mileage until the next oil change. But really you could do whatever you want, it's your car.

 

Oh man, you guessed my secret identity!

 

Thanks for the explanations! We were hoping to use it as driverA and driverB, but it doesn't seem to be designed to work that way.

 

I won't tell ... your secret's safe with me.

I notice you have a Fuelly sig, can you tell me exactly what that's all about? Are you tracking lifetime MPG data/fuel costs and sharing data with others Fuelly people? How do you compensate for the diff between calculated MPG (doing the math yourself) and the Fit's MPG reading?

 

That's basically it. My last car was a Mini Cooper, and I bought the fit to lower my monthly costs. I am using fuelly to track it. As far as compensating between calculated and reported mpg, it's an academic problem. I don't really care about it. I know the mini had better mileage, but the fit uses less expensive fuel, and this is how I am tracking it. The fit is at 7.9 cents per mile. The mini was something like 11 cents per mile.

 

Wow, I would have thought the Fit would beat the Mini in MPG. I never really thought about figuring cents per mile either, interesting. For calculating MPG, I tend to trust old-fashioned math over the trip computer; old-fashioned math has been 5.1% to 6.2% lower than the trip computer so far, but only from a handful of fillups.

 

The Mini really outclasses the fit in every way, except for reliability. Presumably. This is my first Honda. We will see if the reputation holds true. As far as price per mile, vs mpg, well, money is what fuel economy is really about.

 

All MINIs require premium fuel. The MINI 6-speed is more fuel efficient than the Fit 6-speed, but it is not as fuel efficient as the Fit CVT.

MINI vs. Fit Compare Side-by-Side

 

Ah, I didn't realize it was so close; when you factor in the premium price bump the advantage disappears all right. I had a GTI turbo so I know where you're coming from on the premium issue.

After months of reading all the threads here on MPG realities and the CVT vs. 6MT debates, I've come to the personal conclusion that the real-world differences between transmissions and/or trim levels is probably negligible. It's really all about personal preference, so get what you like and don't worry, be happy.

 

I got about 43 mpg in the mini. I get high 30s in the fit. It wasn't as close as that link would have you believe. That said, it wasn't just premium fuel. It was super premium. The mini required at least 91 octane. Around here, that means 93 octane. About $1.25 more a gallon.

 

Wow, a $1.25 price premium, that's crazy. Here, premium (91) is a $0.15-$0.20 price increase over regular (87) and super premium (93) is $0.35-$0.40 more than regular.

I reset trip A with every fill and use trip B on vacations or when I want to measure misc trips.

 

Around my house, the price for super premium is now 50 cents/gal more than the price for regular. It wasn't always that way; when I started buying premium for the GTI years ago the diff was 10-15 cents/gal. I want to say it starting creeping way up after 2008, when gas prices collapsed in the wake of the Great Recession. Fuel companies see boosting premium prices as an easy way grab some profit as overall fuel prices sink by sticking it to a market that is used to paying more, the high-performance crowd.

When I was doing my car-buying due diligence I was looking seriously at the Fiat 500. I thought the MTs were a blast to drive and the discount off MSRP was so compelling (quotes of less than $12K on cars with an $18K+ MSRP were common in the late winter). A big reason I eventually rejected the 500 was the premium fuel requirement, though its small interior (no real back seat) and reports of poor reliability and people waiting weeks to get broken parts replaced were the main factors. Plus, the absence of a spare tire absolutely scares the hell out of me.

 

I know what you mean. I drove an M3 for 7 years which required premium and I never thought anything of paying extra for premium, of course, at only 20 cents a gallon more it didn't seem like such a big deal. Additionally, it was my second car so I only drove it about 4k miles per year. And it also didn't come with a spare, just an electric inflator kit. I guess that's what roadside assistance is for.