Gas mileage
#285
Originally Posted by sLiVeRwOrM
put a 1.3L in there and drive 5mph
I would attribute it to the lighter chassis and different gearing of the car. Simple things can go a long way!
#287
Originally Posted by sLiVeRwOrM
put a 1.3L in there and drive 5mph
Last edited by gilbie99; 08-03-2006 at 01:48 PM.
#288
Originally Posted by fm2n
Yes, a foot pump for bikes should be $6 at walmart.
I filled up again tonight and got 31 MPG. It was 9.05 gallon fillup for 280 miles. Looking good so far. I can do better I'm sure, because I've been running it at high speeds to get all the hoses and transmission conditioned. One of these days I'll take it slow throughout the tank
I filled up again tonight and got 31 MPG. It was 9.05 gallon fillup for 280 miles. Looking good so far. I can do better I'm sure, because I've been running it at high speeds to get all the hoses and transmission conditioned. One of these days I'll take it slow throughout the tank
#290
US Fit Transmissions:
5-Speed Manual Transmission Gear Ratios
1st: 3.462
2nd: 1.870
3rd: 1.321
4th: 0.970
5th: 0.757
Reverse: 3.231
Final Drive: 4.290
5-Speed Automatic Transmission Gear Ratios
1st: 2.996
2nd: 1.679
3rd: 1.067
4th: 0.756
5th: 0.550
Reverse: 1.957
Final Drive: 4.560
Japan Fit Transmissions:
5-Speed Manual Transmission Gear Ratios
1st: 3.142
2nd: 1.750
3rd: 1.241
4th: 0.969
5th: 0.756
Reverse: 3.230
Final Drive: 4.111
7-Speed fast Automatic and fast manual Transmission Gear Ratios
1st: 2.152
2nd: 1.456
3rd: 1.119
4th: 0.884
5th: 0.719
6th: 0.601
7th: 0.524
Reverse: 4.226-2.367
Final Drive: 5.777
The spec sheet lists the "Principal fuel economy improvement measure" as "Variable valve timing/electromotive power steering/automatic non-stage transmission (CVT)"
The Japanaese Fit 1.5A Front Wheel with CVT transmission gets the 48 mpg, not the comparable 1.5S version. See the translated Japaneese specifications page. It seems like FitFreak.net's front page seem to mix and match specs. I haven't checked out Aus/Asian sites yet.
Edit: After looking at the Australian and New Zealand website, the Fuel economy values are only in a single combined number, which was around 39 MPG.
5-Speed Manual Transmission Gear Ratios
1st: 3.462
2nd: 1.870
3rd: 1.321
4th: 0.970
5th: 0.757
Reverse: 3.231
Final Drive: 4.290
5-Speed Automatic Transmission Gear Ratios
1st: 2.996
2nd: 1.679
3rd: 1.067
4th: 0.756
5th: 0.550
Reverse: 1.957
Final Drive: 4.560
Japan Fit Transmissions:
5-Speed Manual Transmission Gear Ratios
1st: 3.142
2nd: 1.750
3rd: 1.241
4th: 0.969
5th: 0.756
Reverse: 3.230
Final Drive: 4.111
7-Speed fast Automatic and fast manual Transmission Gear Ratios
1st: 2.152
2nd: 1.456
3rd: 1.119
4th: 0.884
5th: 0.719
6th: 0.601
7th: 0.524
Reverse: 4.226-2.367
Final Drive: 5.777
The spec sheet lists the "Principal fuel economy improvement measure" as "Variable valve timing/electromotive power steering/automatic non-stage transmission (CVT)"
The Japanaese Fit 1.5A Front Wheel with CVT transmission gets the 48 mpg, not the comparable 1.5S version. See the translated Japaneese specifications page. It seems like FitFreak.net's front page seem to mix and match specs. I haven't checked out Aus/Asian sites yet.
Edit: After looking at the Australian and New Zealand website, the Fuel economy values are only in a single combined number, which was around 39 MPG.
Last edited by Gabes Dad; 08-03-2006 at 04:06 PM.
#291
I have to wonder if those of you who have automatics might have better results if you manually select 4th gear (or less) when climbing even modest hills with your cars.
Keep in mind that the gearing in 5th with the automatics is pretty tall for a 1.5 L engine. Based on the 5th gear and final drive ratios, I've calculated that automatic should only be turning around 2,162 rpm @ 60 mph (vs 2,811 for those with manual transmissions). That's a significant difference! My guess is that Fits with manual transmissions probably don't struggle nearly as much when climbing most modest grades in top gear.
The automatics tall gearing is an advantage when cruising on level highways, but staying in 5th when climbing hills must really make these small engines struggle. My parents used to own a 1st generation Toyota Camry ('85) that also was equipped with an automatic transmission with an unusually tall top gear for a 4-cylinder sedan weighing over 3K pounds and having just under 100 hp. This Camry got great mileage on level highways and was very quiet. However, it was a weak-kneed dog anytime you encountered even a modest hill-especially if you were carrying a car load of passengers.
Keep in mind that the gearing in 5th with the automatics is pretty tall for a 1.5 L engine. Based on the 5th gear and final drive ratios, I've calculated that automatic should only be turning around 2,162 rpm @ 60 mph (vs 2,811 for those with manual transmissions). That's a significant difference! My guess is that Fits with manual transmissions probably don't struggle nearly as much when climbing most modest grades in top gear.
The automatics tall gearing is an advantage when cruising on level highways, but staying in 5th when climbing hills must really make these small engines struggle. My parents used to own a 1st generation Toyota Camry ('85) that also was equipped with an automatic transmission with an unusually tall top gear for a 4-cylinder sedan weighing over 3K pounds and having just under 100 hp. This Camry got great mileage on level highways and was very quiet. However, it was a weak-kneed dog anytime you encountered even a modest hill-especially if you were carrying a car load of passengers.
Last edited by SmoothSailin; 08-03-2006 at 05:37 PM.
#292
Originally Posted by SmoothSailin
I have to wonder if those of you who have automatics might have better results if you manually select 4th gear (or less) when climbing even modest hills with your cars.
Keep in mind that the gearing in 5th with the automatics is pretty tall for a 1.5 L engine. Based on the 5th gear and final drive ratios, I've calculated that automatic should only be turning around 2,162 rpm @ 60 mph (vs 2,811 for those with manual transmissions). That's a significant difference! My guess is that Fits with manual transmissions probably don't struggle nearly as much when climbing most modest grades in top gear.
The automatics tall gearing is an advantage when cruising on level highways, but staying in 5th when climbing hills must really make these small engines struggle. My parents used to own a 1st generation Toyota Camry ('85) that also was equipped with an automatic transmission with an unusually tall top gear for a 4-cylinder sedan weighing over 3K pounds and having just under 100 hp. This Camry got great mileage on level highways and was very quiet. However, it was a weak-kneed dog anytime you encountered even a modest hill-especially if you were carrying a car load of passengers.
Keep in mind that the gearing in 5th with the automatics is pretty tall for a 1.5 L engine. Based on the 5th gear and final drive ratios, I've calculated that automatic should only be turning around 2,162 rpm @ 60 mph (vs 2,811 for those with manual transmissions). That's a significant difference! My guess is that Fits with manual transmissions probably don't struggle nearly as much when climbing most modest grades in top gear.
The automatics tall gearing is an advantage when cruising on level highways, but staying in 5th when climbing hills must really make these small engines struggle. My parents used to own a 1st generation Toyota Camry ('85) that also was equipped with an automatic transmission with an unusually tall top gear for a 4-cylinder sedan weighing over 3K pounds and having just under 100 hp. This Camry got great mileage on level highways and was very quiet. However, it was a weak-kneed dog anytime you encountered even a modest hill-especially if you were carrying a car load of passengers.
#293
As the japanese fit is not in the US, I would assume that the 48 is imperial gallons, and, thus, is approximately equal to 40 mpg. This seems reasonable as it weighs 200 lbs less; however, I am only speculating.
#295
CVT transmission?
EDIT: see https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7468 (other thread is now gone noted 10/9/2006)
Edit 2: Both threads started by same person :-(
EDIT: see https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7468 (other thread is now gone noted 10/9/2006)
Edit 2: Both threads started by same person :-(
Last edited by sam; 10-09-2006 at 10:21 AM.
#296
Originally Posted by crimsona
100% City, stop light or stop sign every quarter mile (welcome to Vancouver?). AC on 70% of the time
24.7 MPG (US gallons), 9.5L per 100 km.
24.7 MPG (US gallons), 9.5L per 100 km.
It's ok, my old car was a Grand Marquis and I was paying about $45 for a fill-up (Every 4-5 days) and now I pay about $28, so I'm happy.
BOM AT/Sport
#297
Can you guys do me a huge favor? Next time you pump gas, when closing the gascap, once it hits clicking point, can you push down on the cap and give it another 1" turn? I want to see if we're losing any compression. On my locking gas cap it seems to click pretty early and Im afraid theres not a proper seal. I noticed my MPG increased by 2 MPG when I did that.
#298
Originally Posted by sparkedfire
The trend I see is that the AT Sport gets bad gas mileage, primarily in te city. I am almost always in traffic (Orlando, FL) and I get 26MPG.
It's ok, my old car was a Grand Marquis and I was paying about $45 for a fill-up (Every 4-5 days) and now I pay about $28, so I'm happy.
BOM AT/Sport
It's ok, my old car was a Grand Marquis and I was paying about $45 for a fill-up (Every 4-5 days) and now I pay about $28, so I'm happy.
BOM AT/Sport
Last edited by smeister; 08-04-2006 at 08:32 PM.
#300
Originally Posted by smeister
Hey I am in Orlando too. I usually drive 408. Yesterday, I hit 315 miles on the tank. I filled the car up to the rim and the total was 7.95 gallons.
Nice mileage you got there.