Gas mileage
#882
Wow! This is some long thread!
Only have done two engine mods:
1. K&N drop in filter
2. Megan Racing 'cat back' exhaust
Away went the OEM restricted muffler; away went that tacky gas-burning-in-the CAT. Less pedal now; seems like more torque. But that could be my imagination. However, when racing around town mpg goes down. With the 'feel' of the less pedal effect with better pull on a hill yesterday (02-05-07) I got 95.3 miles on 1/4 tank. IF the gas gauge is correct, I have no reason to doubt it, then I will most definitely get better gas milage?! Do the mods have anything to do with it? BTW I am still doing the same back and forth in and out of wall to wall gridlock here in the Atlanta area...
Only have done two engine mods:
1. K&N drop in filter
2. Megan Racing 'cat back' exhaust
Away went the OEM restricted muffler; away went that tacky gas-burning-in-the CAT. Less pedal now; seems like more torque. But that could be my imagination. However, when racing around town mpg goes down. With the 'feel' of the less pedal effect with better pull on a hill yesterday (02-05-07) I got 95.3 miles on 1/4 tank. IF the gas gauge is correct, I have no reason to doubt it, then I will most definitely get better gas milage?! Do the mods have anything to do with it? BTW I am still doing the same back and forth in and out of wall to wall gridlock here in the Atlanta area...
#883
from Howstuffworks "How to Buy a Fuel-Efficient Vehicle"
Toyota Hybrids
The Toyota Prius was the first mass-produced hybrid car sold in the United States, and it continues to be extremely popular. In Consumer Guide®'s tests, we averaged 36.7-45.2 mpg. That's a far cry from the EPA estimates of 60 mpg city/51 mpg highway, but it's still better than just about any other vehicle we've ever tested.
that is about 15-24mpg off from EPA..lol..
Toyota Hybrids
The Toyota Prius was the first mass-produced hybrid car sold in the United States, and it continues to be extremely popular. In Consumer Guide®'s tests, we averaged 36.7-45.2 mpg. That's a far cry from the EPA estimates of 60 mpg city/51 mpg highway, but it's still better than just about any other vehicle we've ever tested.
that is about 15-24mpg off from EPA..lol..
Last edited by bestfit; 02-07-2007 at 10:32 PM.
#885
Average for the 5000 miles = 6.015 l/100km (it’s the way we count in Switzerland)
= 16.624 km/l = 39.101 mpg (US) = 46.960 mpg (Imp.)
Best tank filling = 5.63 l/100km
= 17.761 km/l = 41.774 mpg (US) = 50.171 mpg (Imp.)
Worst tank filling = 6.657 l/100km
= 15.022 km/l = 35.334 mpg (US) = 42.436 mpg (Imp.)
The worst tank was during wintertime, with AC 100% switched on.
I can’t complain about AT either :-)
#886
The EPA conducts two test for mpg ratings: the City & Highway
City Test a simulated 11 mile stop-and-go trip with an average speed of 20 mph. The trip takes approximately 31 minutes and has 23 stops. Around 18% of the time is spent idling. The max speed during this test is 56mph. The vehicle is started after being parked overnight. The temperature during these tests are between 68 and 86 degrees Fahrenheit.
Highway Test a simulated 10 mile trip that averages 48 mph. The max speed during this test is 60 mph. The test is run with the engine warmed up and contains very little to no idle time.
The EPA then takes these numbers and adjust them to a set reduction. This is to allow for the fact these test were done in a controlled laboratory environment. Their numbers are lowered by 10% for the City ratting and the Highway numbers are lowered by 22%. These new numbers are find their way onto the Fuel Economy Guide located on the window stickers.
As for my personal mpg, I am plagued with the low AT mileage I have 4300 miles on my car averaging around 29mpg with 104 mile round trip to work. I have broke 30 mpg on one tank (30.4 mpg). Of this,15 is city and the remaining open highway/interstate. I have been to the dealer and he blames it on the winter blend of our fuel here in Illinois and to check back after I hit 5000 miles to insure its broke in. I think that's a load of crap, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until then.
I hope the EPA ratings helped anyone who was interested in them
City Test a simulated 11 mile stop-and-go trip with an average speed of 20 mph. The trip takes approximately 31 minutes and has 23 stops. Around 18% of the time is spent idling. The max speed during this test is 56mph. The vehicle is started after being parked overnight. The temperature during these tests are between 68 and 86 degrees Fahrenheit.
Highway Test a simulated 10 mile trip that averages 48 mph. The max speed during this test is 60 mph. The test is run with the engine warmed up and contains very little to no idle time.
The EPA then takes these numbers and adjust them to a set reduction. This is to allow for the fact these test were done in a controlled laboratory environment. Their numbers are lowered by 10% for the City ratting and the Highway numbers are lowered by 22%. These new numbers are find their way onto the Fuel Economy Guide located on the window stickers.
As for my personal mpg, I am plagued with the low AT mileage I have 4300 miles on my car averaging around 29mpg with 104 mile round trip to work. I have broke 30 mpg on one tank (30.4 mpg). Of this,15 is city and the remaining open highway/interstate. I have been to the dealer and he blames it on the winter blend of our fuel here in Illinois and to check back after I hit 5000 miles to insure its broke in. I think that's a load of crap, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until then.
I hope the EPA ratings helped anyone who was interested in them
Last edited by Mynute 1; 02-12-2007 at 08:30 PM.
#887
For what it's worth, your dealer IS correct about winter blends and winter temps being mileage-killers. Just how much it matters is up for debate, but I strongly suspect that the small Fit engine will be especially prone to this.
This does not address bad mileage by folks in warmer climates, but I fully expect my Fit to do better once spring arrives. I've gotten 30-31mpg most tanks, another 1-2mpg less since the weather has been in the single digits.
JonasM
This does not address bad mileage by folks in warmer climates, but I fully expect my Fit to do better once spring arrives. I've gotten 30-31mpg most tanks, another 1-2mpg less since the weather has been in the single digits.
JonasM
#888
Fit mileage about what I expected compared to EPA
During the five months we wer waiting for our Fit, I kept track of our mileage on our 1999 Isuzu Oasis and 1996 Honda Civic hatchback. In a mix of suburban and highway driving, both got about 75% of the EPA estimate for highway mileage. Since this difference is likely due to our driving styles and schedules, which are unlikely to change, I expected to do about the same with the Fit (37 MPG EPA Highway x 75% = 28 MPG for us), and after six tankfulls that's just about where we are.
The first two tankfuls were much lower (21 and 23 MPG), which I attribute to the much more sensitive throttle on the Fit. I really had to learn to hold back on the throttle, compared to the Oasis and Civic. In fact, when I drove the Civic a few days ago, for the first time in about six weeks, I had to readjust and press much further on the gas pedal to get the same acceleration from stop.
The first two tankfuls were much lower (21 and 23 MPG), which I attribute to the much more sensitive throttle on the Fit. I really had to learn to hold back on the throttle, compared to the Oasis and Civic. In fact, when I drove the Civic a few days ago, for the first time in about six weeks, I had to readjust and press much further on the gas pedal to get the same acceleration from stop.
#889
Not a pump, a direct electric motor, which only operates at low speeds. Take corners faster.
I just had my worst mileage ever: 33mpUSg, which I attribute to cold (morning drive at -10°C to -19°C), snow (unplowed side streets), and 100% city driving on this tank. (I've had close to, but never quite reached, 40mpUSg in good weather.)
I just had my worst mileage ever: 33mpUSg, which I attribute to cold (morning drive at -10°C to -19°C), snow (unplowed side streets), and 100% city driving on this tank. (I've had close to, but never quite reached, 40mpUSg in good weather.)
#890
Just an update I'm now completely certain that the problem some people are seeing with the Jazz (and possibly the Fit) is due to the small engine size. I think the engine is highly optimised for efficiency and as soon as it comes under any load the performance drops off.
When I'm at work I get 51mpg (UK) the route is mostly flat and about 12miles.
I had to take a couple of days off work last week and drove the same distance but in a different direction which meant more hills and a twisty road. Those two journeys dropped my reported milleage down to 43mpg.
I've also noticed that carrying a passenger (a sensible wheight) dropped my 51 down to 48.
I can't be sure that the Fit is as sensitive because it does have a bigger engine but it wouldn't surprise me.
When I'm at work I get 51mpg (UK) the route is mostly flat and about 12miles.
I had to take a couple of days off work last week and drove the same distance but in a different direction which meant more hills and a twisty road. Those two journeys dropped my reported milleage down to 43mpg.
I've also noticed that carrying a passenger (a sensible wheight) dropped my 51 down to 48.
I can't be sure that the Fit is as sensitive because it does have a bigger engine but it wouldn't surprise me.
#891
Mileage has been all over the map. High 44mpg (87 OCT, all hwy), low 20.6mpg (89 OCT, all city, short trips, temps in the single digits). 35 mpg on the last tank (80% hwy, 89 OCT, still freakin' cold).
It'll be interesting to compare next winter's numbers with this winter's numbers.
It'll be interesting to compare next winter's numbers with this winter's numbers.
#892
MT vs. Auto: Observed MPG at 80mph??
Hi...new to the forums here. So far, I've just been lurking here doing research for an econobox vehicle and I'm pretty sure I've found the best quality car in the Honda Fit.
A main point of buying a Fit would be for fuel economy as a daily driver and for long distance travelling. Having driven a 5pd BMW for two years I can't imagine going back to an auto because I love the feeling of being more in control of the machine.
However, I recently read the review comparing the engine speed between the auto and mt at 80mph and there is quite a gearing difference.
My question to MT and auto owners is: what is your observed MPG at 70-80mph? For MT owners, is noise a problem with the engine spinning at 3900 rpm?
With my BMW, while not bad for the engine, running at 4k rpm over long distances certainly uses more fuel. If that's the case with the Fit I may opt to go with the auto, especially considering the availability of the MT.
Thanks in advance for any and all opinions!
A main point of buying a Fit would be for fuel economy as a daily driver and for long distance travelling. Having driven a 5pd BMW for two years I can't imagine going back to an auto because I love the feeling of being more in control of the machine.
However, I recently read the review comparing the engine speed between the auto and mt at 80mph and there is quite a gearing difference.
My question to MT and auto owners is: what is your observed MPG at 70-80mph? For MT owners, is noise a problem with the engine spinning at 3900 rpm?
With my BMW, while not bad for the engine, running at 4k rpm over long distances certainly uses more fuel. If that's the case with the Fit I may opt to go with the auto, especially considering the availability of the MT.
Thanks in advance for any and all opinions!
#893
The engine noise is not bad at all if you're used to 4 cyl cars. However, the Fit has a bit more road noise at speed than some other small cars, e.g. Civic, Corolla. My guess you'll be bothered by the road noise (if at all) before the engine noise.
#894
One other thing - the MPG range of the AT was more than the MT, according to the Consumer Reports December issue. The AT did quite a bit worse in the city , and slightly better on the highway than the MT. They don't specify what the test conditions are though
My memory is that the AT range as 22/41 and the MT was 26/39 in the CR tests, but you might want to dig up the issue to confirm those numbers.
I've been getting in the low thirties overall during a Minnesota winter.....
Hope this helps!
My memory is that the AT range as 22/41 and the MT was 26/39 in the CR tests, but you might want to dig up the issue to confirm those numbers.
I've been getting in the low thirties overall during a Minnesota winter.....
Hope this helps!
#895
One other thing - the MPG range of the AT was more than the MT, according to the Consumer Reports December issue. The AT did quite a bit worse in the city , and slightly better on the highway than the MT. They don't specify what the test conditions are though
My memory is that the AT range as 22/41 and the MT was 26/39 in the CR tests, but you might want to dig up the issue to confirm those numbers.
I've been getting in the low thirties overall during a Minnesota winter.....
Hope this helps!
My memory is that the AT range as 22/41 and the MT was 26/39 in the CR tests, but you might want to dig up the issue to confirm those numbers.
I've been getting in the low thirties overall during a Minnesota winter.....
Hope this helps!
#896
I'm wonder what kind of driving you do in MN. I'm here in WI and have had my auto sport fit for a few tanks now and only getting 22/23 in city driving. was thinking it was the cold temps of last week and previous, but if you are getting 30s up north it's not the cold weather that is my issue.
I have an ~8 mile commute in the Twin cities, 4 miles more or less regular freeway @55mph, 2 miles stop and go, and 2 miles city streets. I usually don't warm the car up, just take it easy for the 1st mile or so (commute starts and ends with city streets).
The worst I've gotten was 28.75 during the last week long cold snap here, when the actual temp was ~ -12F in the mornings and I did actually warm the car up before I left.
The rest of my driving is probably 65-35 city/freeway, mostly short trips of just a few miles - I'm not in the suburbs so most of my trips are short.
As you've seen from the zillion posts in this thread (and the CR report I mentioned), the AT's seem to get a lot less mpgs in the city than the MT's do, but apparently beat them out a bit when cruising.
I expect that the milage will go up when the weather/fuel blends change, but I think you'll probably end up in the mid/high twenties instead of low thirties for city driving based on the other posts here......
#899
first tank review
o,k, first tank 30 mpg... sport auto, west coast fuel 40%city 60%hwy. wow what a car,after having a 90 civic wagon for years this car rocks,I almost felt guilty selling my old car,but after driving my new fit I know I made the right move... a fitfreak forever..............
#900
That sounds exactly like my results with our Sport AT. Worst we've had is 23mpg with ALL city driving, and the best we've ever had was 40.8mpg on a long roadtrip with 4 people and all our bags.