im totally wondering and comtemplating trading in my month old fit at fit for a 5speed fit after hearing all these complaints and seeing myself that the fit is not getting the actual reported gas mileages up to 40. So far ive been averaging around 27 to 32 miles per a gallon which is not the greatest thing in the world. Can you mt guys tell me how much gas mileage you guys get straight from the dealership. I so far have 1100 miles on my car so far, so im wondering should i wait out a little more and see if the gas savings are gonna come soon or is it just gonna be a bust now. I driven my car hard off the lot of the dealership, so factoring that in did i totally **** myself over and caused my terrible gas sippings?

 

I can only speak for myself with my first tank but I got 30 mpg. That was varied between me babying it and driving it hard. Really all I've seen advertised was 35/38mpg so really you're not that far off.

 

27-32 isn't that bad, and how/where you drive makes a huge difference. If I remember right, my MT's first couple of tanks were around 34 in mixed driving. My best tank has been just over 39 95% freeway @ 70-80 mph.

Remember that 2007 EPA ratings (it's not Honda advertising, it's the guvment rating!) are extremely optimistic. They're changing the rating system for 2008 - virtually every car on the market will see it's mpg ratings drop significantly.

You may be able to hit 40 mpg if you don't go over 55-60, drive on a flat surface, don't have much in the car, etc. Reasonable freeway driving should get you high 30's, all city may be mid 20's. if you're in traffic jams a lot, it could be worse....

 

I have a manual sport and and in 3 months I have over 12K miles.
Mostly highway miles but a bunch of it is at 72-80 MPH, 31 was worst ever, 41 best ever (60-65 MPH) all the rest is in the 32-39 MPG range.

 

If you go to google.com and type in EPA ratings 2008 or something like that, there is actually an Excel download you can get. It lets you enter the current 2007 EPA ratings and will spit out the expected 2008 ratings. I remember when I punched in the Fit's 31/36 for the AT, it came out to be something like 27/28 - 33/34. I can't remember exactly, but I do know that the numbers came out to roughly what I've been getting with the AT Fit.

If you're looking for mileage boosters, I know three people that have the Toyota Yaris. They've all been hitting high 30s to low 40s with 50/50 mixed city and highway driving. If mileage is your game, go for the Yaris. It's the lightest of the econocars I think. However, be very careful to look at the options list in comparing a Fit to a Yaris. The Yaris' base price is lower, but it comes with a lot less standard equipment than the Fit. I remember when comparing options of a spec'd up Yaris to a Fit Sport, the Yaris was actually a couple hundred MORE in MSRP.

 

Most tests I've read also say that the Yaris gets slightly better gas milage than the Fit, but not a whole lot, maybe 2-3 mpg, which isn't much in percentage terms. Last poster is right on about the price of a Yaris - base price is a lot less, but if you load it up to match the Fit Sport, it is priced within ~$200, and IMO you get a whole lot less car.

re: AT vs MT gas milage - Consumer reports tested both AT and MT fits and posted real world numbers for both - if I remember right it was in the 12/06 issue The low/high range of the AT was wider than the MT. From memory, the MT had a city/highway range of 28-39 and the AT 24-41, but you'd have to check the issue to confirm. I posted the actual numbers when the issue came out, so if you do a search, you should be able to find them.

In any case, the AT seems to be more sensitive to driving condition changes than the MT. On the highway, it works a bit in your favor, on the city it works against you.

 

I think the AT has longer gears and the MT has shorter gears, so AT = more suited for hwy and MT = more suited for city.

There's another thread on Fitfreaks that mentions this b/c people were comparing hwy driving of the AT vs. the MT. In the AT, most people posted that @ 80mph their tach read 2900~3200 RPM. In the MT, people posted that @ 80mph their tach read 3800~4000 RPM, a pretty big shift from the AT.

I can definitely attest to this since my city mileage is pretty crappy sometimes, almost in 26-27 range. Damn hills in B'ham make it horrible. I hate to hear it struggle up one.

 

Yes, AT has higher gears and the RPM ranges you mentioned sound about right. That's why the AT can get better MPG's on the freeway than the MT and also because at the torque converter is locked in, giving close to the level of engine efficency that an MT has.

However the MT doesn't get better milage in the city because it has lower gears (though that does give better performance). It's because the engine is hooked directly to the transmission, and is inherently more efficent using power than a conventional AT is. This difference is most apparent when speeds change a lot like in city traffic, where the torque converter on an AT is locked up much less than on the freeway.

Why we didn't get CVT as an option is a mystery to me.......

 

I've kept track of my mileage from day 1. This is on a base Fit w/ MT.

Driven 1350 miles on 34.23 gallons for an average fuel economy of 39.44 mpg. This is from mostly highway miles (@70 mph) and fairly conservative driving.

 

Thanks for the correction. I was wondering why CVT wasn't offered even though it's offered everywhere else in the world. I think even the Canadian Fits get CVT.

What does it mean for the torque converter to be "locked in"? Is that when the car is just maintaining speed and not accel/decel?

 

Quoting one more time, because that's about a dead-right conclusion.

 

I own a MT and my wife owns an AT. I've averaged over 45 MPG for the first 1100 miles. Her AT is averaging around 30-31 but she drives more stop'n'go, uses the A/C more, and accelerates more aggressively than I do.

 

I'm almost positive that Canada doesn't get CVT - I think they are just trim differences (e.g. their DX is a stripped down base, LX = our base (except I think they get AUX jack), running lights, and a few other minor differences - The basic powertrain is the same. (I'm really curious to see what changes they just did to the MT to now be eligible for the canadian green rebate, though.....)

I'm not an engineer, but the laymans explaination of a locked torque converter is when the AT senses that you've gotten up to speed in gear, there's no extra load on the engine, etc, and the tranny is moving at about same speed as the engine's turning, a mechanisim engages that hooks the engine directly to the transmission. When this happens, you're connected with basically the same level of efficency that you have with an MT. This combined with the higher gearing can give better mpgs in steady state cruising on the AT.
It will unlock as needed when you accelerate, go up a steep hill, etc.

 

12K miles?! Where the heck did you go?

 

I'll confirm that, sorry we don't get the Fit with the CVT.

My Guess is that the final gear is slightly taller in the 08 Fit for Canada so they can qualify for the green rebate.

 

Don't quote me, but I think CVTs are not in the Americas b/c the clutches were found to be buggy and a nuisance.

Kudos for Fit for using a clutch. Many CVT transmissions like Nissan use 'Ol Whirly (my word for torque converter)

 

Waitadarnminute, CVTs have an automatic transmission style torque converter?? I guess it makes sense, but I never really thought about CVT too much...

 

Consumer Reports reported overall MPG figures of 32 for the AT, and 34 for the MT.

 

That's right. The point I was making is that the range between city and highway as measured by CR was much greater on the AT than the MT - I think you'd have to find the original article to get those #'s.

The 'overall' number is dependant on the mix of conditions the test was conducted in, and if the best/worst condition numbers are far apart )as they are on the AT), it is harder to predict how you would do with the car.

The gas milage poll numbers reflect this - the bell of the milage curve is considerably flatter for the AT than the MT.

 

just a reply to your post. You are doing quite well in mpg with an AT Fit. I have an AT fit and got 22 mpg in the beginig. My first tank was hwy driving witch produced 35 mPG .
I had owned a MT and it was wrecked. The difference in the two cars has been 6 to 12 miles per gallon difference. If great MPG means alot to you concider a trade. It is not bad driving an automatic and it sounds like you may constantly get 38 or 40 mpg on the hwy. It may take 5 or 8 thousand more miles to get to that point.
Personly I would not trade and take a loss on the purchase price.