I would expect 37. You have to start doing extra things to get better than that. 37 is still darn good IMHO.

 

Agree... sounds like we need to encourage him some more!

27 MPG is what I just pulled from my last tank in the STi (yes the 300 HP 3200 lb car) over 322 miles. That included messing around with my friends vette at 115 for a brief period, and not behaving on offramps. 30% city / 70% highway there, even I was shocked.

 

Was messing around that the power steering today and made an interesting observation. with the Fit stopped than eng off it will never turn on when the ign is turned back on. However, if rolling and shut her off, then turn the key back on it works and keeps working after I have stopped. That dash icon is always on in both tries with it working or not... See you your's does that if you can follow that.

 

Last 2 fill up were around 31 mpg for me and the car has just above 2300kms now so it's slowly going up.

 

Actually I think it's quite awful.

From the same manufacturer you have a car with 82% more hp and 27% more weight and meets emissions tougher than LEV that gets only 10% less mileage. (Accord I4) Or even 28% more hp and 17% and meets emissions tougher than LEV and gets almost exactly the same mileage? (Civic LX)

Could you imagine what that engine in the lighter shell of a Fit would do? What I think the Fit should have got mileage-wise in the first place.

The engine platform was designed from the ground up to be independent from other cars in Honda's stable. It was to be a platform engine for the world-seller car (the Fit/Jazz) to go into as many countries as possible as an economy car. The design was fresh and new from the ground up which is rare for a platform engine; how many rehashings are there of the beloved LSx block? Yet the engine is weak, thirsty for what little power it provides, and not-so-good with emissions. Were Honda engineers asleep during that platform design? They certainly weren't asleep for the B series or K series.

My coworker's 1995 Civic with 422,000 miles on it (yes, that's 422K) with the AC on and 80mph gets 40mpg consistently, every day. That mpg measurement isn't out of ordinary, either, from the CRX or other cars of that vintage. What happened? There was no trickery. No hybrid, no crazy lean burn, no regenerative braking, no trick valve timing. That Civic is the same weight as the Fit and with almost same hp, it gets MORE mpg, 10 years ago.

/rant

 

Can't say any of that is not my same feeling, but why did you buy the car knowing all that? I will not believe you if you tell me this is all a surprise.

IMHO the car is still a good value when you look at all it offerers compared to all other offerings at the same price.

 

That sounds about right, when I key on (0 MPH) to roll out of the garage, I get no EPS. However the "surprise! steering wheel" icon is random... sometimes on, sometimes off but if I'm rolling the assist always comes back.

 

Is it possibly pollution requirements etc., that has toasted the better mileage? I too, don't understand why we've gone backwards (and we're still calling it good!) It's as though our minds are being manipulated to believe 'it's good'. 'Seems this little car should do a LOT better.

 

I didn't know all of this and how "bad" my mileage was until I owned it for a while and did the daily driving I normally do. I knew this was a new engine platform and I knew it was geared for economy. What I didn't know was that they didn't try very hard for economy like they did for the K series line.

For $500 more than I got my car, I could have had a Mazda3 hatch. The only saving grace the Fit has over the Mazda3 at that point is the residual values later. At this point I even question that now.

 

If that was the case, then why is the Civic ULEV and the Fit only LEV with the same mileage and even more power? Why is the Mazda3 2.0L engine in the sedan almost the same mileage as the Fit with 30 more hp and PZEV rating?

 

Sounds like it's time to trade it for something better.

BTW I looked for you on the clean mpg site logs at the best Mazda3i is reporting 41mpg. If you are unhappy with Fit eco, a Mazda3 will be worse.

 

I thought the M3Hatch only came with the 2.3L 156hp (PZEV=151hp) engine as base? That, the 22/29mpg, and the $2500-4500 premium over the Fit were deal-killers for me. Mind you, I *LOVE* the 3, but what I NEEDED was a hatch for a short commute, not another hotrod. My previous hatch, an 87 Dodge Daytona, got about 20/30, and had about 190hp. I think the 3 is a superior car to my Daytona in virtually every way, and to the Fit from a suspension standpoint, but it's Fit FTW from a mileage+sporty+utilitarian standpoint. I'm getting high 29's for 90% city driving, and I'm not really trying at all. Not too shabby to be 50% better than my old Daytona or the 3 - on the highway...

HF

 

guys guys guys. the car has serious weight. it's 1500 cc, if even that. poor little honda does the best it can with us at the wheel. lighten your puppy 200 lbs, as in the car. go to the gym. use nitrogen in your tires. complain all you want. It is what it is. a better car than half of what is out there in jungle land.

 

Double posted for maximum visibility!

Here's my first 5205.2 miles of driving:
Just adding up the total gallons and miles gives: 142.9940 gallons over 5205.200 equals 36.40153 miles per gallon.

Finding the mean mpg of the fillups listed above gives 36.42042 mpg with an error on the mean of 0.5751547.

Either way it looks like my average is 36.4+-0.6 mpg.

Over time I've seen an increase in the mpg. That's due in part by a reduction in speed from about 80 mph to 65-70 mph.

 

Recovered from that last poor fill
Same driving with a few days of more eng shut off
Same old cheap as I can find, Costco no name 87 Octane GAS
288 miles
6.34gals

 

New update for the latest fill up:
Just adding up the total gallons and miles gives: 152.7020 gallons over 5598.0 equals 36.65963 miles per gallon.

Finding the mean mpg of the fillups listed above gives 36.65813 mpg with an error on the mean of 0.5883986.

Either way it looks like my average is 36.7+-0.6 mpg.

Over time I've seen an increase in the mpg. That's due in part by a reduction in speed from about 80 mph to 65-70 mph.

But the real big deal is that I joined the 40+ mpg club. That surprises me a bit because I spent a day driving around San Francisco on this tank and am at 10% oil life, both of which I expected to contribute to a lower mpg result for this tank. I did drive in the 65 mph range and coasted a lot (on a good day I can cost about 95% of the two miles from my home to the highway, a drop of about 1000 feet) and spent some time drafting big trucks.

Here's hoping for even higher mpg results in the future. Though I expect that not to last since summer is coming and I'll be using the AC.

 

forget the AC i like to role down my window on the highway or city streets in san jose, oakland, alameda, and SF.

 

I'm commuting (pretty much all highway) on the other side of the hills, so add 15 or 20 degrees to the temperatures in Oakland, Alameda and SF.

Doesn't the drag caused by the open window(s) just about equal the use of AC?

 

when i have my windows down on the highway i cruise at about 60-65. it will cause a drag if you are at high speeds say 70-80miles an hour. I could be wrong though.

 

It always causes drag to have the windows open while driving. Though the faster you go the more drag it causes.

Wahoo! Post number 500 in the thread. (sorry about that)