Mileage reports: Manual transmission (5MT)
#481
13K miles now. Never had more than 37mpg on a tank. My drive is 19 miles freeway (60mph speed limit) and 1 mile 35mph city roads, 3 traffic lights. I shift under 2700 rpm every time.
Worst tank was 27mpg from highway driving at 80mph with a full load over flat land. Apparently wind was at my face for that crappy mileage.
Worst tank was 27mpg from highway driving at 80mph with a full load over flat land. Apparently wind was at my face for that crappy mileage.
#482
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.
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.
#483
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.
#485
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
#486
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
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
IMHO the car is still a good value when you look at all it offerers compared to all other offerings at the same price.
#487
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.
#488
Actually I think it's quite awful.
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
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
#489
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.
IMHO the car is still a good value when you look at all it offerers compared to all other offerings at the same price.
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.
#490
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.
#491
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.
huu It's geared like a Honda motorcycle IMHO. lol Way to high RPM's for 70mph cruse. In fact I think that is one of the reasons it's not any better.
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.
huu It's geared like a Honda motorcycle IMHO. lol Way to high RPM's for 70mph cruse. In fact I think that is one of the reasons it's not any better.
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.
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.
Last edited by pcs0snq; 04-04-2008 at 06:23 PM.
#492
HF
#493
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.
#494
Double posted for maximum visibility!
Here's my first 5205.2 miles of driving:
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.
Here's my first 5205.2 miles of driving:
Gallons Miles Tank's MPG
9.423 297.50 31.57169
7.938 273.90 34.50491
9.566 332.90 34.80033
9.092 298.70 32.85306
9.195 309.00 33.60522
8.923 324.40 36.35548
8.469 315.80 37.28894
8.799 316.80 36.00409
8.613 323.00 37.50145
8.421 313.10 37.18086
9.405 345.20 36.70388
9.002 352.70 39.18018
9.980 386.40 38.71744
8.287 324.00 39.09738
8.845 335.30 37.90842
9.036 356.50 39.45330
Just adding up the total gallons and miles gives: 142.9940 gallons over 5205.200 equals 36.40153 miles per gallon.9.423 297.50 31.57169
7.938 273.90 34.50491
9.566 332.90 34.80033
9.092 298.70 32.85306
9.195 309.00 33.60522
8.923 324.40 36.35548
8.469 315.80 37.28894
8.799 316.80 36.00409
8.613 323.00 37.50145
8.421 313.10 37.18086
9.405 345.20 36.70388
9.002 352.70 39.18018
9.980 386.40 38.71744
8.287 324.00 39.09738
8.845 335.30 37.90842
9.036 356.50 39.45330
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.
#496
New update for the latest fill up:
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.
Gallons Miles Tank's MPG
9.423 297.50 31.57169
7.938 273.90 34.50491
9.566 332.90 34.80033
9.092 298.70 32.85306
9.195 309.00 33.60522
8.923 324.40 36.35548
8.469 315.80 37.28894
8.799 316.80 36.00409
8.613 323.00 37.50145
8.421 313.10 37.18086
9.405 345.20 36.70388
9.002 352.70 39.18018
9.980 386.40 38.71744
8.287 324.00 39.09738
8.845 335.30 37.90842
9.036 356.50 39.45330
9.708 392.80 40.46147
Just adding up the total gallons and miles gives: 152.7020 gallons over 5598.0 equals 36.65963 miles per gallon.9.423 297.50 31.57169
7.938 273.90 34.50491
9.566 332.90 34.80033
9.092 298.70 32.85306
9.195 309.00 33.60522
8.923 324.40 36.35548
8.469 315.80 37.28894
8.799 316.80 36.00409
8.613 323.00 37.50145
8.421 313.10 37.18086
9.405 345.20 36.70388
9.002 352.70 39.18018
9.980 386.40 38.71744
8.287 324.00 39.09738
8.845 335.30 37.90842
9.036 356.50 39.45330
9.708 392.80 40.46147
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.
#498
Doesn't the drag caused by the open window(s) just about equal the use of AC?
#500
Wahoo! Post number 500 in the thread. (sorry about that)
Last edited by JBElliott; 04-11-2008 at 05:21 PM.