Gas mileage
#601
09-22-2006, 09:37 AM
Originally Posted by growingfamily
docjim2 and carlosalicea, no matter what my political beliefs, we all have to use oil. Do you get your food at the grocery store? Do you drive to work? Are we supporting big oil, I don't think anyone has a choice in the matter. Take that how you want. In the mean time, docjim2, the discussion was about how to better our gas mileage, which in the grand scheme of things, will lessen some oil we use. Why do you think I drive a subcompact with 2 almost 3 children, instead of an SUV or a minivan?
There are some cars that I like i.e. G35coupé or that old SRT-4, but I don't like the idea of using and paying for that much gas and at those prices!!. And hate the idea of a few people making HUGE money out of our wallets. I do drive to work and is a long way, so you're right we all depend on oil, but it sucks to have that many ( every one) greedy leaders.
Anyway, I vote to waste gas for fun and racing porpuses only.
When not, I drive like an old lady! Changing gears early, and coasting in neutral whenever I can.
eVEN THE FIT, I'd like to make it turbo and all stuff but: it will kill the main purpose of it that is to have fun carry a lot of things and sip gas. And it will also push me out of the stock category for solo or auto x
#602
09-22-2006, 02:29 PM
If oil prices stay high, it will make it more economically feasible for us to develop alternative energy and technology, plus more people will get on board to conserve -- and then those oil producing nations will be back to being 3rd world countries. The Saudis realize that, that's why they try to keep OPEC in line and prices down. Otherwise when the oil isn't needed and the bank accounts run down, all they'll have is sand and camels.
#603
09-22-2006, 05:58 PM
Originally Posted by JessW1982
People saying that their SI's are better deals than the Fit irks me. It really is like comparing apples and oranges. The SI is an awesome car, no doubt, but the whole "If the SI can get 29mpg, then why isn't the Fit doing 40+ all the time?" argument is pointless. The difference between the mpg of the two cars might be "marginal" to some people, but that "marginal" difference could add up over time. Plus, not everyone who bought a Fit is going to see some SI owner talking about how their mileage is so close and say "Boohoo, I should have bought one of those!" It's just a dumb (and slightly off-topic) subject for discussion - if I wanted to know the mileage of someone's SI, I would be reading over at the SI boards. If you're going to compare a Fit's mileage to that of another car, stick to cars that are in its segment, its true "competition". Comparing it to an SI isn't fair, and the comparison tells Fit owners nothing useful. Not to say people can't discuss what they want, just my two cents.
And, my Fit's mileage gets better every week, so that makes me happy. My highest tank's still only around 32 mpg, with my average between 28 and 30, but I spend a lot of time in stop and go traffic in a major city, and I haven't been babying her at all, so I consider that pretty good. I only use about a tank and a quarter of gas a week. Not bad. VBP Sport AT.
And, my Fit's mileage gets better every week, so that makes me happy. My highest tank's still only around 32 mpg, with my average between 28 and 30, but I spend a lot of time in stop and go traffic in a major city, and I haven't been babying her at all, so I consider that pretty good. I only use about a tank and a quarter of gas a week. Not bad. VBP Sport AT.
But I'm getting a solid 29 mpg in my Si and You are only getting 28 mpg in "Your Economy Car---FIT---"...Now tell me but I think that is a bit absurd, don't you? This is why and Jess; I do so thank you for proving my point again for me...A fit gets 28mpg in the exact same driving conditions while my "Sports Car" gets 29mpg.....Now don't You want to Retract your "Stupid Comment"...especially if you have read the regs of this message board...Maybe I struck a NERVE !...hahahaha....
But seriously, I see lots of Fit Owners complaining about poor gas mileage, this is the reason I went with the Si instead of the Fit. I've been on this board and have read the posts, I have used that information to make a solid decision when I went out and ploped down $20K for a new car. I knew that I would have been absolutely Sick if I had purchased a Fit and didnt get at least a solid 30 mpg in the city(stop and go) and a solid 38mpg on the highway.
I'll say it again thanx for the info, this board helped me make a selection that after a month I'm extremely happy with. Don't get me wrong ( as some of you did) I really like the Fit, and am a Honda enthusiast. IMHO the Fit is so much better than any other competitior, but all of the sub-compact econo's need to get close to 40 mpg..Again..IMHO..which is just that an Opinion, and there is no need for name calling or the use a crying towels....boo hoo....
Honda's Rule...now I need to make room for a S2000 in my driveway....
GWD-> person living in a land where we are free to express our thoughts even though SOME people dont like what I have to say...LoL...
#604
09-22-2006, 07:30 PM
You can't say the driving conditions are the same unless the drivers are the same and the course is identical. One persons idea of city driving may be quite different from anothers.
#605
09-23-2006, 09:09 AM
A very tactful and informative post. I agree 100%.
Originally Posted by Jetydosa
Sorry Im a bit late on this, but I dont understand the comparison with the Si at all. It in no way competes with the Fit.
1 - Its a much sportier car, w/ limited cargo capacity
2 - It has the lastest K20 variant motor, with newer/better technology than the ~5yr old motor in the Fit.
3 - The MSRP is over $7000 higher ($13,850 vs 21,090) so, you are PAYING for the technology that gives it higher horsepower w/still good economy.
4 - The Fit is still rated 10mpg better (almost 30%) higher in the city and 6mpg (~15%) hwy better that the Si. Forget all the "well on the forums blah blah blah", the ONLY 100% equal controlled conditions test done for milage has been done by the EPA (for right or wrong but thats all we have thats truly fair).
5 - The Si requires premium fuel, a significant increase in operating costs
6 - The Si has significantly higher insurance premiums.
The Si is a great car, no doubt, but for many people, actually inferior to the Fit bc of space, milage, and price.
1 - Its a much sportier car, w/ limited cargo capacity
2 - It has the lastest K20 variant motor, with newer/better technology than the ~5yr old motor in the Fit.
3 - The MSRP is over $7000 higher ($13,850 vs 21,090) so, you are PAYING for the technology that gives it higher horsepower w/still good economy.
4 - The Fit is still rated 10mpg better (almost 30%) higher in the city and 6mpg (~15%) hwy better that the Si. Forget all the "well on the forums blah blah blah", the ONLY 100% equal controlled conditions test done for milage has been done by the EPA (for right or wrong but thats all we have thats truly fair).
5 - The Si requires premium fuel, a significant increase in operating costs
6 - The Si has significantly higher insurance premiums.
The Si is a great car, no doubt, but for many people, actually inferior to the Fit bc of space, milage, and price.
#606
09-23-2006, 11:03 AM
Originally Posted by guywdog
Wow, Jess...since when is it a crime against Humanity to voice "One's Opinion".... I'm quiet sorry that you think I'm stupid !
But I'm getting a solid 29 mpg in my Si and You are only getting 28 mpg in "Your Economy Car---FIT---"...Now tell me but I think that is a bit absurd, don't you? This is why and Jess; I do so thank you for proving my point again for me...A fit gets 28mpg in the exact same driving conditions while my "Sports Car" gets 29mpg.....Now don't You want to Retract your "Stupid Comment"...especially if you have read the regs of this message board...Maybe I struck a NERVE !...hahahaha....
But seriously, I see lots of Fit Owners complaining about poor gas mileage, this is the reason I went with the Si instead of the Fit. I've been on this board and have read the posts, I have used that information to make a solid decision when I went out and ploped down $20K for a new car. I knew that I would have been absolutely Sick if I had purchased a Fit and didnt get at least a solid 30 mpg in the city(stop and go) and a solid 38mpg on the highway.
I'll say it again thanx for the info, this board helped me make a selection that after a month I'm extremely happy with. Don't get me wrong ( as some of you did) I really like the Fit, and am a Honda enthusiast. IMHO the Fit is so much better than any other competitior, but all of the sub-compact econo's need to get close to 40 mpg..Again..IMHO..which is just that an Opinion, and there is no need for name calling or the use a crying towels....boo hoo....
Honda's Rule...now I need to make room for a S2000 in my driveway....
GWD-> person living in a land where we are free to express our thoughts even though SOME people dont like what I have to say...LoL...
But I'm getting a solid 29 mpg in my Si and You are only getting 28 mpg in "Your Economy Car---FIT---"...Now tell me but I think that is a bit absurd, don't you? This is why and Jess; I do so thank you for proving my point again for me...A fit gets 28mpg in the exact same driving conditions while my "Sports Car" gets 29mpg.....Now don't You want to Retract your "Stupid Comment"...especially if you have read the regs of this message board...Maybe I struck a NERVE !...hahahaha....
But seriously, I see lots of Fit Owners complaining about poor gas mileage, this is the reason I went with the Si instead of the Fit. I've been on this board and have read the posts, I have used that information to make a solid decision when I went out and ploped down $20K for a new car. I knew that I would have been absolutely Sick if I had purchased a Fit and didnt get at least a solid 30 mpg in the city(stop and go) and a solid 38mpg on the highway.
I'll say it again thanx for the info, this board helped me make a selection that after a month I'm extremely happy with. Don't get me wrong ( as some of you did) I really like the Fit, and am a Honda enthusiast. IMHO the Fit is so much better than any other competitior, but all of the sub-compact econo's need to get close to 40 mpg..Again..IMHO..which is just that an Opinion, and there is no need for name calling or the use a crying towels....boo hoo....
Honda's Rule...now I need to make room for a S2000 in my driveway....
GWD-> person living in a land where we are free to express our thoughts even though SOME people dont like what I have to say...LoL...
And, pointing out the flaws in the logic of comparing a sports car with an econo car doesn't mean that I'm jealous of the sports car. Hell, if I wanted an SI, I would have bought one. But I didn't (as I said, IF you paid attention to my post, I LIKE the SI, but I don't like coupes, besides the cosmetic factor, and I wouldn't buy one for my main, commuting car. Maybe I'll supplement my driveway with a sports car, after a few years, when I make it big :P). To me, the drawbacks of a sports car FAR outweigh the benefits of owning one for my daily commute. All a matter of preference.
28-29 mpg is pretty good, considering the traffic I sit in every day (ie - a 25 to 30 minute ride down the highway takes OVER AN HOUR in rush hour traffic - all those stops definitely kill your gas mileage.) In the type of traffic I drive in, I probably wouldn't make those mpgs in an SI, or any other less fuel efficient vehicle. I'm not jealous you make that in your SI. I'm not really envious of anyone's fuel economy; so many different factors, including how you calculate your fuel economy, skew the numbers to the point where you almost can't compare them at all.
It's so funny how people say they would be so upset if they didn't get the advertised fuel economy for their cars; there's a range, based on EPA estimates, and as long as you're within that range, you should be fine. If, like some people here, you're getting absolutely horrid mileage, that's a cause for concern, but MPG in the upper 20's and early 30's is good. If a person only bought the Fit for these high mpgs and bemoans the fact that they could have bought a faster, high performance car that did better, well, then, why didn't you just buy the faster car? Part of your disappointment is because you settled without thinking realistically - no car's going to get its advertised mpg every time you fill up; it varies. If you think the Fit's too underpowered for the mileage it's getting, stay with your sports car that's getting similar mpg and be happy. Bragging about it, or making it seem like the Fit's somehow lacking because it's not getting the same mileage all the time, doesn't help anyone.
I never said you weren't free to express your thoughts, either, even if I don't agree with them, and personally don't see their relevance. Am I not free to express the fact that I disagree, then, by that logic? No one can stop anyone from posting, unless you're a mod. Keep saying what you wish.
I want to reiterate that I never called you a name; I called the comparison stupid (actually, I said I thought it was a "dumb subject for discussion" for this thread). That has no bearing upon what I think about your opinions or anything else about your intelligence or character. I just didn't agree with your comparison, that's all. No jealousy, no spiteful thoughts, no bitterness. I'm happy with my car and its performance, and I hope you are happy with yours, too. I'd just rather hear comparisons of Fit to Fit gas mileage in this thread, not Fit versus a sports car, SUV or another car that's not in its segment. But, if you want to keep talking about your SI, g'head. Have fun with it.
And, I stand by what I said, and don't wish to retract anything. Are you trying to censor my opinions, now?
Last edited by JessW1982; 09-23-2006 at 11:12 AM.
#607
09-23-2006, 11:06 AM
AGREED 100% 
Originally Posted by Jetydosa
Sorry Im a bit late on this, but I dont understand the comparison with the Si at all. It in no way competes with the Fit.
1 - Its a much sportier car, w/ limited cargo capacity
2 - It has the lastest K20 variant motor, with newer/better technology than the ~5yr old motor in the Fit.
3 - The MSRP is over $7000 higher ($13,850 vs 21,090) so, you are PAYING for the technology that gives it higher horsepower w/still good economy.
4 - The Fit is still rated 10mpg better (almost 30%) higher in the city and 6mpg (~15%) hwy better that the Si. Forget all the "well on the forums blah blah blah", the ONLY 100% equal controlled conditions test done for milage has been done by the EPA (for right or wrong but thats all we have thats truly fair).
5 - The Si requires premium fuel, a significant increase in operating costs
6 - The Si has significantly higher insurance premiums.
The Si is a great car, no doubt, but for many people, actually inferior to the Fit bc of space, milage, and price.
1 - Its a much sportier car, w/ limited cargo capacity
2 - It has the lastest K20 variant motor, with newer/better technology than the ~5yr old motor in the Fit.
3 - The MSRP is over $7000 higher ($13,850 vs 21,090) so, you are PAYING for the technology that gives it higher horsepower w/still good economy.
4 - The Fit is still rated 10mpg better (almost 30%) higher in the city and 6mpg (~15%) hwy better that the Si. Forget all the "well on the forums blah blah blah", the ONLY 100% equal controlled conditions test done for milage has been done by the EPA (for right or wrong but thats all we have thats truly fair).
5 - The Si requires premium fuel, a significant increase in operating costs
6 - The Si has significantly higher insurance premiums.
The Si is a great car, no doubt, but for many people, actually inferior to the Fit bc of space, milage, and price.
#608
09-23-2006, 03:18 PM
Roe, (and others that drive purely city)
I apologize if I read your post and interpreted that you were lead-footing it.
I think what your issue is, is not HOW you drive your Fit, but WHERE you drive it. I'm picturing you driving in an area where you can't go more than a block or two before having to stop.
Keep in mind, any vehicle uses the MOST fuel when going from a stop up to cruising speed.
If your driving conditions are constantly stopping very soon after getting up to cruising speed, and doing it repetitively, then you WILL get very POOR fuel efficiency.
I'd still like to see what happens if you take a road trip, doing mostly highway mileage, for at least a full tank of gas to see what you get.
If you could do so, and returned expected, or close to expected, highway fuel economy, then I'd have to say it is 100% your driving situation in the city that is to blame for your poor economy.
I apologize if I read your post and interpreted that you were lead-footing it.
I think what your issue is, is not HOW you drive your Fit, but WHERE you drive it. I'm picturing you driving in an area where you can't go more than a block or two before having to stop.
Keep in mind, any vehicle uses the MOST fuel when going from a stop up to cruising speed.
If your driving conditions are constantly stopping very soon after getting up to cruising speed, and doing it repetitively, then you WILL get very POOR fuel efficiency.
I'd still like to see what happens if you take a road trip, doing mostly highway mileage, for at least a full tank of gas to see what you get.
If you could do so, and returned expected, or close to expected, highway fuel economy, then I'd have to say it is 100% your driving situation in the city that is to blame for your poor economy.
#609
09-23-2006, 09:43 PM
Originally Posted by JessW1982
I didn't call you stupid, I just stated that it wasn't a fair comparison, and I don't understand why people are comparing one class of car to another, totally different one. It's the same with people comparing the gas mileage of SUVs and mid-size sedans to Fits; it's not useful or helpful, considering the forum, unless a person's actually looking to replace a Fit with one of those cars (and, most of the discussion here, from what I see, isn't going in that direction).
And, pointing out the flaws in the logic of comparing a sports car with an econo car doesn't mean that I'm jealous of the sports car. Hell, if I wanted an SI, I would have bought one. But I didn't (as I said, IF you paid attention to my post, I LIKE the SI, but I don't like coupes, besides the cosmetic factor, and I wouldn't buy one for my main, commuting car. Maybe I'll supplement my driveway with a sports car, after a few years, when I make it big :P). To me, the drawbacks of a sports car FAR outweigh the benefits of owning one for my daily commute. All a matter of preference.
28-29 mpg is pretty good, considering the traffic I sit in every day (ie - a 25 to 30 minute ride down the highway takes OVER AN HOUR in rush hour traffic - all those stops definitely kill your gas mileage.) In the type of traffic I drive in, I probably wouldn't make those mpgs in an SI, or any other less fuel efficient vehicle. I'm not jealous you make that in your SI. I'm not really envious of anyone's fuel economy; so many different factors, including how you calculate your fuel economy, skew the numbers to the point where you almost can't compare them at all.
It's so funny how people say they would be so upset if they didn't get the advertised fuel economy for their cars; there's a range, based on EPA estimates, and as long as you're within that range, you should be fine. If, like some people here, you're getting absolutely horrid mileage, that's a cause for concern, but MPG in the upper 20's and early 30's is good. If a person only bought the Fit for these high mpgs and bemoans the fact that they could have bought a faster, high performance car that did better, well, then, why didn't you just buy the faster car? Part of your disappointment is because you settled without thinking realistically - no car's going to get its advertised mpg every time you fill up; it varies. If you think the Fit's too underpowered for the mileage it's getting, stay with your sports car that's getting similar mpg and be happy. Bragging about it, or making it seem like the Fit's somehow lacking because it's not getting the same mileage all the time, doesn't help anyone.
I never said you weren't free to express your thoughts, either, even if I don't agree with them, and personally don't see their relevance. Am I not free to express the fact that I disagree, then, by that logic? No one can stop anyone from posting, unless you're a mod. Keep saying what you wish.
I want to reiterate that I never called you a name; I called the comparison stupid (actually, I said I thought it was a "dumb subject for discussion" for this thread). That has no bearing upon what I think about your opinions or anything else about your intelligence or character. I just didn't agree with your comparison, that's all. No jealousy, no spiteful thoughts, no bitterness. I'm happy with my car and its performance, and I hope you are happy with yours, too. I'd just rather hear comparisons of Fit to Fit gas mileage in this thread, not Fit versus a sports car, SUV or another car that's not in its segment. But, if you want to keep talking about your SI, g'head. Have fun with it.
And, I stand by what I said, and don't wish to retract anything. Are you trying to censor my opinions, now?
And, pointing out the flaws in the logic of comparing a sports car with an econo car doesn't mean that I'm jealous of the sports car. Hell, if I wanted an SI, I would have bought one. But I didn't (as I said, IF you paid attention to my post, I LIKE the SI, but I don't like coupes, besides the cosmetic factor, and I wouldn't buy one for my main, commuting car. Maybe I'll supplement my driveway with a sports car, after a few years, when I make it big :P). To me, the drawbacks of a sports car FAR outweigh the benefits of owning one for my daily commute. All a matter of preference.
28-29 mpg is pretty good, considering the traffic I sit in every day (ie - a 25 to 30 minute ride down the highway takes OVER AN HOUR in rush hour traffic - all those stops definitely kill your gas mileage.) In the type of traffic I drive in, I probably wouldn't make those mpgs in an SI, or any other less fuel efficient vehicle. I'm not jealous you make that in your SI. I'm not really envious of anyone's fuel economy; so many different factors, including how you calculate your fuel economy, skew the numbers to the point where you almost can't compare them at all.
It's so funny how people say they would be so upset if they didn't get the advertised fuel economy for their cars; there's a range, based on EPA estimates, and as long as you're within that range, you should be fine. If, like some people here, you're getting absolutely horrid mileage, that's a cause for concern, but MPG in the upper 20's and early 30's is good. If a person only bought the Fit for these high mpgs and bemoans the fact that they could have bought a faster, high performance car that did better, well, then, why didn't you just buy the faster car? Part of your disappointment is because you settled without thinking realistically - no car's going to get its advertised mpg every time you fill up; it varies. If you think the Fit's too underpowered for the mileage it's getting, stay with your sports car that's getting similar mpg and be happy. Bragging about it, or making it seem like the Fit's somehow lacking because it's not getting the same mileage all the time, doesn't help anyone.
I never said you weren't free to express your thoughts, either, even if I don't agree with them, and personally don't see their relevance. Am I not free to express the fact that I disagree, then, by that logic? No one can stop anyone from posting, unless you're a mod. Keep saying what you wish.
I want to reiterate that I never called you a name; I called the comparison stupid (actually, I said I thought it was a "dumb subject for discussion" for this thread). That has no bearing upon what I think about your opinions or anything else about your intelligence or character. I just didn't agree with your comparison, that's all. No jealousy, no spiteful thoughts, no bitterness. I'm happy with my car and its performance, and I hope you are happy with yours, too. I'd just rather hear comparisons of Fit to Fit gas mileage in this thread, not Fit versus a sports car, SUV or another car that's not in its segment. But, if you want to keep talking about your SI, g'head. Have fun with it.
And, I stand by what I said, and don't wish to retract anything. Are you trying to censor my opinions, now?
Wow, what a mouthful...but let me have my say. I'm totally happy with my choice of the Si and would be severely disapointed with the sub 30mpg Fit. While Yes comparing a Econo-car to a Sports car is not a fair comparison, however it is fair to compare Certain aspects of 2 entirely different classes of vehicles. Or in your case "I" Think it is fair, you might not and I respect that and would never say that your thoughts are Stupid or show lack of any respect; for 2 heads are better than 1; and also I feel that while I am a very smart person I don't know everything there is to know about automobiles. While I have been in the industry for more than 15 years I have picked up some experience dealing with Automobiles ...LoL...
My point is that a econo-car Should get better gas Mileage than a "Sporty" car. Maybe You think otherwise, but the General Public will think Not !
In my commute I drive a 2006 Si - 38 miles - and it takes me 90 minutes. That is less than 30 miles/hour and all of that 38 miles is Interstate. So you can only imagine the horrendous stop and go driving I have to go thru. And all with the AC on since the temps here are in the 90's. I feel very strongly that on a long "Open Road" Interstate trip I could get 33+mpg outta my Si. So my thoughts(and they are my thoughts;which I think are rellevant, but some will think othewise ; which is also kewl) but I personally think the Fit delivers poor mileage and my Si delivers Excellent mileage for "What they are" 2 different vehicles, but both use gasoline and One promotes itself as gasoline saving -the "Fit"- while in fact many many Owners say otherwise.
While there are Fit owners that say they get good mileage there are just as many that state otherwise. Even the previous poster states a MPG of 28-29 is acceptable for an Economy car. I would beg to strongly disagree. The average Joe/Jane publice would also strongly disagree ......
But it is all good and in the spirit of Honda Luv we can all agree to disagree, but kindly do it in a respectful and "good-natured" way....I would never in my wildest dreams expect to get -- 29 mpg -- the way I drive and the route and horrendous traffic that I drive in. I luv my Si and you know I also think it is Terrific that Fit owners Luv your Fits. I am a Honda person thru and thru.....and I have the experience to prove it....so enjoy the best vehilce on the road....."any".... Honda.....
GWD
Last edited by guywdog; 09-23-2006 at 09:57 PM.
#610
09-25-2006, 09:07 AM
ditto!
Originally Posted by FondaFit
If oil prices stay high, it will make it more economically feasible for us to develop alternative energy and technology, plus more people will get on board to conserve -- and then those oil producing nations will be back to being 3rd world countries. The Saudis realize that, that's why they try to keep OPEC in line and prices down. Otherwise when the oil isn't needed and the bank accounts run down, all they'll have is sand and camels.
Right on! I say let's all support drilling in Alaska, deep water in the gulf just so we can see the Saudis and the others go back to herding camels! And does'nt that lovable little fuzz ball Hugo Chavez own Citgo outright? Aren't we paying for those ballistic missles he just bought? I really feel sorry for all of his OWN people that he oppresses however.
#611
09-26-2006, 11:15 AM
Originally Posted by DRum
Where I live (and I always thought this was national) each pump is required to show the amount of ethanol. Here (SD - home of ethanol) things are a little backwards. Regular 87 octane (which never has ethanol) is usually 3 cents more expensive than 89 octane (which always has 10% ethanol). Super never has ethanol and is about 8 -10 cents more than regular.
So you can choose ethanol or not. One advantage of ethanol in the real cold weather (I mean real cold like -30 or -40 F) is that the ethanol absorbs water in the tank from condensation and helps to prevent freezing up of the fuel system.
I always use regular (no ethanol) unless it is well below zero. BTW extreme cold weather hurts mpg even worse than running the A/C. Engine runs cooler and the oil is thicker. On a real cold day I can warm the car up for 15 minutes then drive the kids to school and then drive to work and the temp gauge is still pegged on cold.
Of course in a small town that is only about 2 miles of driving.
So you can choose ethanol or not. One advantage of ethanol in the real cold weather (I mean real cold like -30 or -40 F) is that the ethanol absorbs water in the tank from condensation and helps to prevent freezing up of the fuel system.
I always use regular (no ethanol) unless it is well below zero. BTW extreme cold weather hurts mpg even worse than running the A/C. Engine runs cooler and the oil is thicker. On a real cold day I can warm the car up for 15 minutes then drive the kids to school and then drive to work and the temp gauge is still pegged on cold.
Of course in a small town that is only about 2 miles of driving.
#613
09-27-2006, 09:57 AM
Docjim I'm in the cascade foothills and run up and down hills all the time.. plus the mountains and i was still getting the 40+ mpg.. I need to fill in the next day or so.. will see what the guy says at the one place.. I'm using Synth oil blend (castrol)
Anyway.... we don't get SUPER cold here. but it will go in bouts of single and low double digets. Personally, I've always just tossed in Heet if I was having issues in that way.
The only other factor that I can figure is the 'individule' driving habits.
Anyway.... we don't get SUPER cold here. but it will go in bouts of single and low double digets. Personally, I've always just tossed in Heet if I was having issues in that way.
The only other factor that I can figure is the 'individule' driving habits.
#614
09-29-2006, 01:00 PM
38.7 MPG ave. on 1,378 mile trip
Just retrurned from a mini vacation. San Diego to Zion National Park, North Rim Grand Canyon, Antelope Canyon (Page, AZ) and back to SD.
There was lots of steep grades and elevations close to 9,000 ft. At times I needed to down shift in order to have the power to climb some of the steeper grades, and freeway riding, all with the a/c on.
Best tank was 41.6 mpg...second best was 40.2 mpg. Worst was 37.1 mpg.
The Fit was wonderful on the trip. Many folks in the Big SUV's asked about my gas mileage and weeped when I told them I was getting Over 40mpg! The Fit also handled the narrow twisty mountain roads like a champ!
Great trip was made better by the Fit!
There was lots of steep grades and elevations close to 9,000 ft. At times I needed to down shift in order to have the power to climb some of the steeper grades, and freeway riding, all with the a/c on.
Best tank was 41.6 mpg...second best was 40.2 mpg. Worst was 37.1 mpg.
The Fit was wonderful on the trip. Many folks in the Big SUV's asked about my gas mileage and weeped when I told them I was getting Over 40mpg! The Fit also handled the narrow twisty mountain roads like a champ!
Great trip was made better by the Fit!
#615
09-29-2006, 01:20 PM
Oh btw the off the beaten path gas station has moble/exxon. or carries that. bit whine milage dropped to 38 a gallon for this round. BUT, I was driving a lot of dirt roads and doing almost 90% stop and go. grin.
#616
09-29-2006, 02:02 PM
Just a point of interest here but if you ask any Owner Operator Truck Driver that really pays attention to their fuel mileage they will tell you that they get better mileage in hilly terrain.
The reason is this. On flat or relatively flat ground the vehicle is under constant load to keep moving. On hilly terrain the engine is ONLY under load to keep moving while going uphill.
Trucks have had qualcom for years that show the average mpg and accumulated mpg as well as many other aspects of what the truck is doing. It's all available thru the qualcom that just about every large trucking company has in their fleet of trucks.
The mpg makes a big difference to Owner Operators since the fuel comes out of their pockets so they pay attention to it more than company drivers do but I used to keep an eye on it just out of curiosity.
The reason is this. On flat or relatively flat ground the vehicle is under constant load to keep moving. On hilly terrain the engine is ONLY under load to keep moving while going uphill.
Trucks have had qualcom for years that show the average mpg and accumulated mpg as well as many other aspects of what the truck is doing. It's all available thru the qualcom that just about every large trucking company has in their fleet of trucks.
The mpg makes a big difference to Owner Operators since the fuel comes out of their pockets so they pay attention to it more than company drivers do but I used to keep an eye on it just out of curiosity.
#617
09-29-2006, 10:13 PM
Took my car to the dealer today, and complained about the poor gas mileage.
They refused to do anything about it.
they said its not broken in yet, wait until 6k miles. I have 3k now.
Poor excuse, previously I took it in, I was told it was due to oxygenated gas and 10% gasahol, they refused to check out the car for this issue.
No service advisors want to do anything about it, I guess theres not much they can do...
They wouldn't even do the idle learn procedure!
Shack Findlay Honda
Henderson NV.
They refused to do anything about it.
they said its not broken in yet, wait until 6k miles. I have 3k now.
Poor excuse, previously I took it in, I was told it was due to oxygenated gas and 10% gasahol, they refused to check out the car for this issue.
No service advisors want to do anything about it, I guess theres not much they can do...
They wouldn't even do the idle learn procedure!
Shack Findlay Honda
Henderson NV.
Last edited by Jimmy101; 09-29-2006 at 10:25 PM.
#618
09-29-2006, 10:38 PM
Originally Posted by Jimmy101
Took my car to the dealer today, and complained about the poor gas mileage.
They refused to do anything about it.
they said its not broken in yet, wait until 6k miles. I have 3k now.
Poor excuse, previously I took it in, I was told it was due to oxygenated gas and 10% gasahol, they refused to check out the car for this issue.
No service advisors want to do anything about it, I guess theres not much they can do...
They wouldn't even do the idle learn procedure!
Shack Findlay Honda
Henderson NV.
:(
They refused to do anything about it.
they said its not broken in yet, wait until 6k miles. I have 3k now.
Poor excuse, previously I took it in, I was told it was due to oxygenated gas and 10% gasahol, they refused to check out the car for this issue.
No service advisors want to do anything about it, I guess theres not much they can do...
They wouldn't even do the idle learn procedure!
Shack Findlay Honda
Henderson NV.
:(
#619
09-29-2006, 10:43 PM
In city driving with the a/c 30% of the time I get 220 miles
from a topped off tank, when I refill I put in about 9.5 gallons each time.
On long fwy drives, I can get 30mpg with the a/c on.
I don't do much idling, pedal to metal on occasion...
from a topped off tank, when I refill I put in about 9.5 gallons each time.
On long fwy drives, I can get 30mpg with the a/c on.
I don't do much idling, pedal to metal on occasion...
#620
09-30-2006, 12:35 AM
Originally Posted by Jimmy101
In city driving with the a/c 30% of the time I get 220 miles
from a topped off tank, when I refill I put in about 9.5 gallons each time.
On long fwy drives, I can get 30mpg with the a/c on.
I don't do much idling, pedal to metal on occasion...
from a topped off tank, when I refill I put in about 9.5 gallons each time.
On long fwy drives, I can get 30mpg with the a/c on.
I don't do much idling, pedal to metal on occasion...