I had an 86 Civic wagon that got significantly better mpg than the Fit (averaged about 38-40 mpg vs. 28-30 for the Fit, both AT). My commute in the Fit is a lot longer, and it's used for more highway driving than the Civic. Don't think my driving habits have changed much. The Civic was not as quick as the Camaro it replaced, but acceleration was decent. I was anticipating that the Fit would do at least as well on fuel economy. I heard that neither the Yaris nor the Versa is performing as well as original EPA estimates. What surprises me is the wide range of mpgs I'm seeing on this forum!

 

Has anyone seen the Drag coefficient specs for the Fit. Being a hatch-back it will prob. not be too good.

This article mentions the diff. between 50 and 70 MPH.
http://www.cartalk.com/content/colum...cember/12.html

An old article but some things don't change.

I couldn't be happier with my LX auto MPG. getting better as mileage
goes up.

 

Update on my test: It's been three days now, driven 109.2 miles, and the needle has just barely crossed the 1/4 tank mark. I don't know how much longer I can take this slow driving thing, it's completely against my nature But I am getting MUCH better milage (I'd usually get 55-60 miles at the 1/4 tank mark). Maybe I'll reschedule the appointment tomorrow morning to next week. I want to see this test through to the end to get an idea of just how much mpg I can squeeze out of my Fit.

 

Thats how it normally is.

My friends modded 05 RSX-S got good gas mileage when he first bought it since he was on break in. Since then it wasnt doing so good, sometimes it was "ok."

He broke the 10,000 mile mark and his mileage is INSANE now!!! He gets around/over 200miles by the half tank mark!!! And thats beating on it at times with the A/C always on.

 

I dont know about all this talk. yes the usa fit might get poorer mpg then the rest of the world however, I just acheived 46.4 mpg on the hwy and have had 37.8 or better around town for two tanks now. I would have been jumping for 40 mpg. I need therapy now... I almost bought a volkswagon TDI

 

Just because a car is rated as "33mpg city/ 38mpg hwy" doesn't mean that the car will always achieve those numbers. Those are simply averages from EPA's tests. If you look at the car's original window sticker, read the fine print below the EPA ratings.

This is what it says on mine:
"ACTUAL MILEAGE will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits and vehicle condition. Results reported to the EPA indicate that the majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between 28 and 38 mpg in the city, and 32 and 44 mpg on the highway."

 

willmax11 good car talk artical

 

For AT Fit Sport the milage range is 26-36 city, 31-43 highway. Just in case AT drivers did not keep the window sticker

 

I'm off to the dealer to get my Fit checked out, and I intend on being present during the test drive. I want to know exactly under what circumstances does the Fit get those mpg figures. As roenyc has mentioned in another thread, his dealer took it for a test drive and told him everything was fine, getting an average of 38mpg, when on his own driving experience he gets far below that. I'll report any findings later today.

 

Nothing to report. The Fit came back with an okay check from the dealer, but they did say the 10-20% ethanol additive to NY fuels could be part of the reason, as well as my wider tires and that the car hasn't yet been fully broken in. Nothing that wasn't already mentioned in here previously. No test drive though, only after around 7500 miles and I'm still experiencing low milage, and the test drive would be done by one of the managers through the course of two days. I can't miss two days of work to satisfy my curiosity Anyway, I'll stop worrying about the milage, as 27mpg is MUCH better than I was getting from my Toyota 4Runner, and after breaking in the milage will surely improve a bit. Back to enjoying my Fit Now if only UPS could hurry their @ss and bring my JDM center console sooner...

 

You are ignorant.

1) The fuel economy of the 1.5 is right on par with other cars of the same displacement and size/weight.

2) The Fit sold overseas is within 30-40 lbs of what we get here. It is 99% the same car. Are you really insane enough to think Honda is sabotaging the USDM Fit to get worse mileage? Are you out of you g*ddamn mind dude? Get a grip.

3) The mileage estimates you are quoting are for a different engine, likely the 1.3/1.4 liter 88 horsepower engine AND/OR measured by a DIFFERENT METHOD THAN THE US EPA estimates. Lets compare apples and oranges some more shall we?

Do some research before you come in here yelling this nonsense. Go buy a dull-ass Civic HX if you want. No one cares. It's an unresponsive, dull-to-drive car that can't touch the Fit's interior flexibilty which is why I chose something else when I test drove one years ago. Yawn... In another thread you claim you are just going to buy a Dodge Challenger? You are either a troll or an idiot or both. If you're going to make an argument at least get your facts straight. It's painfully obvious you have no idea what you're talking about and I am embarrassed for you honestly.

 

do you actually own one? if so, research before you buy. if not, don't worry about what we (generalization) are happy with.

 

fuel economy is based SOLELY on the driver. i have gone from 32-34mpg to 45+mpg just by changing my driving style

 

Thsi is true.... in Japan they use what is considered "MODE10"... which is basically as if you were driving in a "perfect world" with no traffic

 

eeeeexactly ^^^

 

God dammit, i just looked up all the info to make this guy look like a douche and i find out this thread is 3 years old lol, oh well here's the info for the point of the matter.


1996 Honda Civic HX gets 30/35
1996 Honda Civic 5MT gets 28/35
2007 Honda Fit Base gets 27/35
2009 Honda Fit Base gets 28/35

 

Old thread FTL.