2010 Base, fourth tank, Chevron 87 E10
34.3 calculated
34.7 indicated
About 50/50 urban highway and moderate traffic surface streets, including hilly terrain, little A/C use, 36psi in tires.

The trend is improving mpg, maybe due to break in, but more likely learning curve as I get used to the car. This time I used fifth gear sometimes on level surface streets above 45mph. This engine is so much more flexible, that is wide torque band, compared to my old BMW.

 

I was checking pressure as I do periodically, and it was 38 psi all around. I recently had a warranty repair (my car was DEAD r/t the master cylinder leak). It was a totally freak thing they said they have never seen before on a fit. If it happens you quite simply cant shift gears anymore.
Anyway, I digress... My last tank was 38.54 mpg. Equalling just about the best I have ever had on a tank. I attribute part of coarse to the above mentioned shop visit with now higher psi. Funny thing is I didn't notice any ride degradation with the higher tire pressures.
To improve gas mileage, I am going to purchase hybrid tires if they are available (after these tires wear out). I purchased this car for the economy and utility and have been very pleased. Are the guys with auto transmissions getting better gas mileage?
...
Also, regarding roof racks... I take mine off whenever I am working a lot. It really does affect gas mileage.

 

Two last fill up, fit 2009.

One I got 26,5 MPG with only city driving and not so light foot/not much anticipation (delivering for a restaurant).

One I got 45MPG at 55-60mph on highway, no traffic, not too many hills.

The fuel economy thing on the dash isn't worth anything also. In l/100km it said 7.4 while i was doing 8,9, and after 4.5 while I did 5.2

 

26.5 MPG is low mileage for my car running 10PSI boost.... I can assure you I will never be able to touch 45MPG, never could even when the car was bone stock or with after market intake and a trick axle back pipe and straight through muffler.... You must be driving like a madman while doing deliveries.... You need to hit your boss up for hazardous duty pay.

 

26MPG is what I get of 50/50 city driving/highway (at 65mph) from my mr2 turbo when not boosting too much.

 

5600miles avg 38MPG.

 

 

That's crazy, Paul! Still getting a rare 40 here, with a lifetime avg of a bit over 32... I'm happy with that for now. Wondering how the sticky tires will affect that when these Dunlops finally wear out.

Congrats, man!

Clair

 

I got a 42.35 mpg tank two weeks ago keeping speeds down and hypermiling a little. Since then I went on a weekend trip (230 miles each way). Averaged 32 mpg driving at a solid 80 mph with the A/C cranked. The gas mileage drops dramatically the faster you go (over 65 mph). Next month I am taking a car full of people from Minnesota to Eugene, Oregon (approximately 1832 miles). That should be an interesting experiment. I am going to have fun coasting in neutral in the mountains if time/safety allow. On the way back I will be leaving behind one passenger that weighs about 250 lbs. It will be interesting to see if there is much difference in MPG. Can't wait to get to the coast!

 

i'm still averaging about 30.4 mpg due to mostly city driving. I also need to get an alignment still.

 

thought you peeps might like this thread:

https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/1st-...ual-sport.html

 

I once managed to pull off 39.9mpg on a trip to Tampa, when the car had about 5k on it or so.

What was so weird was that I wasn't trying... In the morning, I had the A/C going and I was going about 80. I had the cruise set at 70 on the way back.

Since then, I've tried hypermiling, drafting tractor-trailers, everything, and I've never repeated it.

The factory tires by the way do help. As noisy as they are, I consistently got 3-4mpg more with them than the Dunlop Direzza summer tires that are on it now.

 

Here are the mileage data for my third annual Colorado hiking and climbing trip from Nashville in my '08 base manual Fit. Total mileage was 3175.5 miles over a 2-week period. Average calculated trip mileage = 44.56 mpg. Highest per tank mpg = 49.88. Average cost per mile = $0.0588. Lifetime mpg average is now 40.53 mpg for 26,735 miles. Due to the very hot weather, I did run the AC some in Kansas and Missouri and the average trip mileage was down about 0.5 mpg from my first two trips. I ended up sleeping in the Fit most nights I wasn't on the trail and I took it over what are described as rough 2wd roads to reach trailheads which worked fine as long as I was very slow and careful. I scrapped the undercarriage only once. I continue to be impressed with the economy and utility of the Fit.

 

2011 Sport M/T. 1st tank! 33.2 MPG actual (32 flat indicated.) 90% highway with cruise @ 73-74mph. There are 5 traffic lights on my 40 mile, one-way commute, so there is the occasional stop and go. Short shifting, coasting, timing traffic lights when possible. Overall, I'm pleased, but wish this thing had another gear!!! I'm going to try to keep speeds around 65 max for this next tank. If there's a dramatic difference, I may have to start driving slower.

 

Mostly highway and back roads:
1st Tank= 33.5
2nd =36.5
3rd=36.1
4th=35.1
What is interesting is this engine is volumetrically identical to a 94 Civic DX manual which easily got >40mpg...now there is no way in hell the Fit Sport is going to get that figure with average driving. Reason for the difference, U ask? Answer: weight...the Civic weighs ~250-300lbs less than this Fit. The increased weight is not due to air bags (~30 lbs at best) but rather larger body and better reinforcements for safety/crash tests.
Bottom Line: Engine better efficiency (iVtech) than previous models but cannot overcome added weigh it has to push.

Later, Ken

 

8786 miles tracked 37.9MPG average.

 

300 lbs isn't going to cost you 7 MPG on average, not by a long shot. Even driving with two extra people I might lose two MPG at worst.
Gearing and engine tuning are the reason.
In 1994 1.5L civics with manual transmission were rated everywhere from 29/36 to 39/50 (current EPA equivalent)

If the Fit were equipped with the D15Z1 (VTEC-E with lean burn), or almost any other D series from the era with their conservative tuning it would consume less easily. The L15 VTEC is the highest HP engine available in any Fit worldwide and is tuned for performance first.

Now for the terrible gearing...
1994 Civic DX Hatchback ratios
Final drive in 5th: 2.729376
Final drive in 4th: 3.688722

2010 Fit Ratio:
Final Drive in 5th: 3.35874

5th gear in the Fit is closer to driving in 4th gear in a 94 DX. That is a lot of extra revs per mile. Add in the performance tuned L15 putting out 20-30 more HP than 1.5 liter engines did 20 years ago, and THAT is what explains the Fit's merciless guzzling.

 

Interesting and very informative, TU...I have heard that Honda is considering a 6spd for 2012...do you think they will make the 6th gear ~2.72 to lower the revs for highway driving...what is particularly puzzling is the 2011 Hundai Elantra GLS has 1.8L DOC rated at 148 with a six spd tranny and yet gets EPA 40 mpg. Why is Honda's 1.5L iVtec engine not able to compete with the GLS that has 30 more hp and is heavier by 172 lbs? I am confused

Later, Ken

 

Unfortunately Honda is going the OPPOSITE direction with the Fit final drives. From the GD3 to the GE8, the MT final drive has gotten even shorter. Remember, with the Fit, peppiness and sportiness take top priority over fuel consumption. That has been working extremely well in the US where people think 30 MPG is fantastic.

Regarding the 6MT... In every vehicle I've seen that has gone from a 5 to 6 speed or had both available, 6th gear in the 6MT has been very similar to 5th in the 5MTs. Automakers believe those in the US who choose manual only want performance, and prioritize "not having to downshift on a hill" over "3 extra MPG".
Honda prefers you buy a Civic Hybrid, Insight or CR-Z if you want better fuel economy.

Regarding Hyundai... again, it's all in the transmission gearing and engine tuning. I don't have the ratios for the Elantra, but I think it comes out to being about 1000 RPM lower than the Fit would be on the highway. Also, the Elantra has an extremely low coefficient of drag with that swoopy shape. That counts a lot with todays tough, high speed EPA testing.

One final thing to ponder: A Civic Si only gets 2-3 MPG better on the highway than a 5.7L Corvette 6MT throughout the years. Engine size and vehicle weight is irrelevant when proper gearing and aerodynamics come into play. All lightness does is up your city MPG a bit. Honda has chosen to ignore the former until this year, when competition is about to bite their rear.

 

Yes, I almost bought the Elantra because of the 40 mpg but found a site that showed the Fit was actually better in fuel economy and most EPA gas mileage estimates (at least the method used before they changed to new more realistic estimates) over estimate mileage whereas the Fit gets much better than the EPA's 33mpg. In the end, the two earlier Civics and Honda's reliability lead me to stick with Honda and get the Fit.