Considering that the fuel tank is located under the front seats, the fuel pipe from the back of the car could easily hold another 1-2 gallons.

 

are you sure you're not leaking oil?

 

I've thought about the fuel pipe as well...I think I even posted a similar response before.

For grins, I went out & looked. By rough estimates, it appears the tube is ~1 - 1.5 diamter, and probably in total between 6-7 feet in length. So this would come to be just about 1.5 gallons.

wyy183 (Dave?) have you ever run out of gas before? I wonder if your gas gauge is allowing you to run down to vapors, and when you fill up, you use all of the fill-tube capacity, thus giving higher numbers. Like I said, my gauge shows me running on fumes, but usually I only put 9 gal in.

 

You're probably still 'topping off'. That means continuing to pump after the pump has automatically shut off.

You can do it, but it's not a good thing, as the pump can actually suck gas back in to prevent it from spilling, which means you're paying for gas that the pump is sucking back up.

Fill it until it pops once, maybe squeeze it until it pops the second time, and that's it.

 

are you using regular or premium gas? chevron premium gives the good everytime

 

Ah, well, I normally have signatures turned off since many of them are so obtrusive.

 

I'm starting to see a trend here...

The manual transmission fits are doing just as advertised while the Automatic transmission fits are not even in the ball-park. I still have some hope that once mine breaks-in I'll do a little bit better than the 28 mpg I'm averaging.

 

great MPG FTW

 

Ok - to answer several questions here...

I took deliver on May 17, 2006. My VIN is JHMGD38657S007276.

Yes, I top up on filling; however, I hold the nozzle physically outside of the fill spout. There is NO WAY for it to suck anything back into the nozzle. I fill using short spurts of gas, about 0.1 gallon at a time. When I can see it coming up the spout, I release the handle. I sure ain't going to waste any fuel!!

Interesting side notes.
- I have two CRX's. Both have 11.9 gallon tanks. I've NEVER been able to put more than 11.3 gallons in. Usually around 10.6 is average.
- I had a '93 Civic Si, which has (it's one of my daughter's cars now) a 13.2 gallon tank. I put 15.6 gallons in it previously.
- I had a 2002 Civic EX with a 13.2 gallon tank. The most I ever put in it was 12.5.
- I had a 1999 CR-V EX with a 15 gallon tank. I could put about 14.5 gallons in.
- I had a 2005 CR-V EX with a 15 gallon tank. I put 17.6 gallons it it once!!

Doesn't make any sense to me either. I've been filling my cars like this for years. Sometimes I get one that I can put more than the listed amount in. Sometimes I don't.

 

do you run your tank way past the red light for empty? Heh, I think someone should just run their car untill there is no more gas in the tank... and go fill up.

 

On http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.d...onda&model=Fit , the MT reports average 35mpg, equal to the EPA combined figure, while the AT reports average 29mpg, 4mpg below EPA combined. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the car's fault, though: the MT drivers report 40% city driving while AT drivers report 60% city. Every car gets 0mpg sitting still.

 

I suppose what has me confused as much as anything is the "logic" behind why some of us aren't getting the mileage that we are supposed to.

I've been driving like my brakes are grinding for the past few tanks (meaning that I watch every traffic light, and time myself so as not to have to stop, when possible.) I drive BELOW the posted speed limits, for the most part.

I'm still not even getting the EPA city rating.

I was one of the original culprits who ran the math on things, and saw how much lower rpm we would be running with the auto vs. the manual transmission.

80 mph has been used as reference with the MT running 3900 rpm, and the AT running 2900 rpm. This is true. When the AT downshifts to 4th, it goes to right at 4000 rpm, about what the MT is. However, using my ScanGauge for reference, I've manually shifted between 4th and 5th running the same stretch of road on the highway, and it gets significantly better mileage in 5th gear.

Prior to purchase, I read up on a lot of stuff to find that the AT has a lockup torque converter in 2nd through 5th gears.

I've driven several (three, if I recall) MT Fit's. The AT "feels" like it has more power (probably due to DBW programming?) and accelerates very well.

I'm just having a difficult time believing that the AT is in some way that much less efficient than the MT.

I love my Fit. I love everything about it except for the fuel economy.

I guess my main gripe is when I see someone driving a Buick LeSabre with a 3.8L V6 and getting nearly same gas mileage out of this old 2-valve boat of a car.

I had a '93 Civic Si, which is similiar in most dimensions to the Fit. It had a 1.6L, 125 hp engine. It weighed about the same. I could easily get 37 mpg with it.

 

That's my main gripe as well. I drove my 95 Civic hard, and constantly got 30-35MPG, regardless of city/highway. Even when I baby the Fit I'm lucky to get 30MPG.

 

On the other hand, Consumer Reports got 22 MPG City on their test for the Auto, cementing the theory that the automatic gets pretty low real city mileage. So you're not getting completely out of whack results.

 

Seems that my fuel economy has been getting better with each fill-up.

1st tank I got 27 mpg
2nd tank I got 29 mpg
3rd tank I got 31 mpg

I'm driving a Sport Automatic. I have noticed that I use a lot less fuel when I don't run the AC. I know the AC puts a drag on any car fuel economy, but maybe the fit's is more drastic due to it's small engine?

 

My heart can't take it...I finally broke the 30mpg barrier. My best in-town mileage has been 26 mpg and now my best highway mileage has been 33 mpg. This was accomplished driving without AC and at an average speed of 80 mph on a pretty flat road (I-10 from Phoenix to Tucson). While this doesn't compare with many of the other folks on this forum, it's really not too bad considering the size of engine, auto trans, and speed. I guess I won't be selling it after all. But, I think it could be better. I'm now wondering if altitude/air density doesn't have an effect...

bob

 

Bob, I live in Phoenix also. If you have to drive in heavy traffic here, I'm not surprised that you get less than 30 MPG. I used to drive my Civic Si from Phoenix to Tucson and I'd get about 34 MPG at around 75 MPH. The one thing I'm noticing about the Fit is that the mileage isn't what most people expect. Both the Civic and the Toyota Corolla, even with auto trans, are getting the same mileage as the Fit and those are bigger cars. Someone commented that the Fit has a poor power to weight ratio and I'd have to agree. I think that's what is killing the MPG, at least in metro areas. I think the Fit is a great little car (did you see the new Consumer Reports issue? Fit killed 'em) but I sure wish Honda would put a bigger engine in it. Even a 1800 cc would make all the difference in the world, in my humble opinion.

 

try going 55. Also, apprently the best milage has been in "hilly" roads.

 

*You* try going 55 around here...if you don't get shot you'll be run off the road. I just go with the prevailing traffic. Our freeway speed limits are 75mph.

siguy, I believe you're correct in your suggestion that the engine is just too small. It's a great little car, but needs a little more power in order to get a better gas mileage. I don't think our blends of gasoline and ether/alchohol help either.

bob

 

First tank & First Fill-up: 272 miles on 7.988 US Gal = 34.05 mpg

Qualifiers:
* 3.5 days of commuting
* no side trips except the drive home from the dealer (6 miles)
* Brand new Fit Sport AT
* Varied driving speed
* don't know how much dealer filled it up
* I filled it up as much as it would take. After 3 miles released the gas cap

Trip Details
* 3 miles of 30 mph city street (2 to 5 stops)
+ 30 miles of I-94/894 (55 to 75 mph with 2 afternoons of 10 mile 40mpg
+ 3 miles 62 mph hwy
+ 2 miles 35 mph city street (3 stops)
= 38 miles (so 6 + 38*7 trips = 272)

Observations:
I am happy and mildly suprised. Of course the next few tanks will tell more since the tank fill method, even with top-off is probably only +/- 0.5 gal.