I have something similar installed on all my vehicles. I don't care what anyone thinks I have done a lot of research on magnetic field ionization and it's good on any fluid.

I even have magnetic water conditioning on my home and on my spa.

I would do a little checking around on the name but the only thing that gets my attention in the pic is that the magnets appear to be exposed which would make them less attractive to me personally. Depending on what they're using for magnets they may rust.

Still at $5-$6 a piece in a 6 pack I would say go for it. Don't expect the results their claiming but the principal has been proven time and time again.

Generally it take a gauss strength of 11,200 gauss or more to achieve best results and I know they wont come close.

I believe the Fits fuel filter is in the fuel tank so there better not be any rust or metal in the fuel line in the first place so the line getting clogged isn't a concern.


Magnets can even take the bitterness out of coffee to some extent. Try it sometime.

 

So this tank I used 89oct. I didnt feel a power difference, maybe?

My MPG got lower though. The tank before this was 33mpg. This tank I got 30mpg. I drove the car the same as I always do.
Im back on 87oct, I'll report with more info.

 

This week I seem to be getting better milleage. Trip comp reports over 49 most of the time. From my last 'manual' check that suggests 42mpg (UK). It occurred to me that the last two weeks (the last tank's worth) were the first two weeks of full car sharing I'd done with a friend (work's been preventing it recently). I know that my Civic 1.6l used to reliably gain 2mpg when we didn't car share.

It could be that a third affect to add to my previous list is passenger wheight. If it 'cost' me 2mpg with a 1.6l engine perhaps it costs 3mpg with a 1.3.

Put all those together (not yet broken in; cold/wet/windy weather;greater impact on engine of a/c and passenger) and that tank's 39mpg maybe isn't so bad.

After 4 years I can't honestly say what my Civic 1.6 would be doing right now. It typically got between 38 and 42 so I stopped caring.

Can anyone comment if a smaller engine is more strongly affected by load than a bigger one?

 

Don't be suckered by this scam.

 

Scam!! Yep... a Mythbusters recent show tried out many devices like this and it was obvious that this is nothing more than a moneymaking scam...

 

Now I'm getting ~37.5 MPG all the time.

I haven't done any long trips for a while. My driving mix is very consistent. If anything, I've noticed it tapering off a little. The weather has been much colder lately. I think that can affect tire inflation, oil viscosity, and wind resistance which contribute some to lower mpg. Here is my lifetime mpg average chart:

 

I have consistently gotten above 35 mpg (last tank was 37, and 42 was the highest) since I bought her 2500 miles ago. One tank I drove extremely hard with red lines etc., going up steep hills, sitting in city traffic (San Antonio) and the mileage went down to near 30 mpg. I have always thought, and still do, that most people who "think" they drive conservatively, actually drive very aggressively. Not sure about the AT transmissions though (mines an MT), it seems like there are an awful lot of complaints on the board. I just know that when I ride with about 99% of my friends and acquaintances, most of them gas it up and brake hard between lights, tailgate, and constantly change speeds on the freeway (especially the AT drivers). It seems like the American way of driving (I'm not dissing anyone, it just is what it is). Rush rush rush, brake hard, rush some more. For those of you who have been tracking legit data, and driving conservatively with poor results, I believe and feel for you. I wish everyone on this board could get results like mine. Peace!

 

I am probably an exception. I get ~37.5 mpg on a m/t because I don't drive really fast (but sometimes I like to redline my lil Fit because it's fiun!) and usually stay below 70 mph. I put my m/t in neutral going down hills and watch the Scangauge say "157 mpg" and smile because I know that the Escalade in front of me is getting ~15 mpg.

I really love the Fit. It is the funnest car I've owned since my 1985 Honda Civic 1500S hatchback.

Recently I drove when I took a co-worker out to lunch. He made the remark that my m/t Fit was the smoothest sounding shifter he'd ever heard. (He and his wife drive Acuras and Camrys.) I'd say that is a compliment.

 

Well I have 20,000 on my Fit now (had it since July 17th). Im still getting 25-27 on average and i had only one tank that got 30.1 or so. And I am prob 80-90% freeway. By myself most of the time but I'm 2 people in myself (6'4" 360) Mobile 1 oil and Nitrogen filled tires at 38psi (cold inflation plus 3 psi

I drive 75-85 on average and I even know the Fuel Injection shuts off at 116mph. But dang guys, my 97 Civic DX Auto and DelSol S 5spd both got 27-29 on average.

Highest i ever got with my BOTH Civic and DelSol was 34mpg Hwy coming back from Grants Pass Oregon. Just on the one tank i filled in OR. Once I put CA gas back in around Sacramento, right back to 28 or so. The reformulated gas we get in larger urban areas and pretty much all of SoCal (because of the AQMD) is high in oxygenates (Methanol or MTBE) that is supposed to make OLDER cars run cleaner. Well your Oxygen sensor on newer cars already accounts for this and ends up burning more fuel to compensate for the added O2 suspended in the fuel.

 

that's really wierd cuz im driving in canada whic right now its like super cold and on one leg of my 400 km trip i hit everything from a 10km traffic jam to snow which was 4 inches deep, in addition i averaged about 140km/h with one sprint up to 180km/h (i wanted to find the top speed but it just took forever to accelerate from 180 and i got scared) and in the end it still averaged 31mpg

this is like 80% highway 20% city but due to the afformentioned traffic jam and conditions id say 60% highway 40% city would be a better reflection of what i actually drove through

i havnt actually filled up but im at 460km right now and the low fuel light still hasnt turned on (it usually turns on at around 33-34L, that is it takes 33 or 34 litres to fill it up once the light's on)

interestingly if the light turns on but you put in anything less then 5L of gas the light stays on even though it's past that "critical" point

 

why did they have to paint your hood and roof? I have the 3M stuff over a lot of my car. If I had the money I'd wrap the whole thing in it laugh..

 

On an odd note, do u guys use Imperial or US gallons on your pumps?

 

Personally my gas mileage was great, even with a CAI, header and exhaust I was still getting 35-38 mpg, I got some Drifz 17" wheels, and it dropped to 30-31. I got some light weight 17" Motegi Traklights and now I'm back up to 36 the last tank. If you do decide to get wheels, definately go for light weight, leave the heavy wheels to the people with torque and hp to spare, like a turbo diesel truck =)

 

what do you think of this, changing VTEC engagement point to save gas...

http://robearracing.com/pd_apexi_vtec.cfm

 

I've always thought that if I could raise the VTEC engagement to 3600 or so, I could cruise at 70 (my usual freeway cruise speed) without engaging VTEC, thus saving a little gas. I suspect that's why I've only gotten about 30-31 mpg each of my first four tanks. Maybe someone with a scangauge can check MPG at 65 vs. at 70. Then we'd have an idea if it would help.

JonasM

 

i use litres and convert to us gallons

 

oh btw, i just filled up for the cruising at 140kph with burst up to 180 for few km with crazy snow and gridlocked freeway sections tank and got 33.44mpg =D

lovin this car more by the day, the real killer for economy on the fit is changing speed, acceleration is a real strain on the lil engine. if i can get 33.44 mpg driving at the speed i do with the conditions im facing, i'm sure you guys down in the states will be getting 36+ mpg if you just look a bit farther down the road. granted most of my tanks are 80% highway but i have a feeling that my city mpgs wont be much worse considering

 

vtec engagement occurs at a maximum of 3400rpm regardless of what you do, you can get it to engage earlier with more throttle

the computer determines you want more power when you use more throttle so opens up the second intake valve earlier. it engages at 3400 no matter what you do because if it needs it to breathe at those higher rpms (can 3400 even be considered high ??, but thats understandable considering the narrow and long runners on the engine)

 

Right - I'm well versed in the operation (I saw the VTEC light thread, and have owned an S2000 with VTEC light for 5 years now). A fuel controller like the one posted above would allow you to change the upper limit for VTEC in the Fit computer to something like 3600 or so. As long as you're not accelerating, that SHOULD allow you to stay out of VTEC until somewhere past 70 mph. Currently in the 5 speed, 3400 is at 68 mph. I'd love to up the final engagement point just a little higher...

JonasM

 

What would be more beneficial than just alterning the VTEC changeover would be to dyno tune the engine with it add/subtracting fuel at the various RPM points (I believe 12 over and 12 over on the VAFC2) so as to achieve closest as possible stoich mixture. This will allow the engine to run at its most efficient and also make as much power as possible.

That said, Im not sure the VAFC2 is even compatible with the Fit ECU, and a Hondata setup would be even preferable over the VAFC. I wonder if Hondata plans to release a compatible product like it has for many other Hondas.