Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hatchbacks Honda Fit Honda Fit Real World MPG
2438 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 1:51 PM
You are in the Honda Fit Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
'09 Fit Sport AT purchased today. 7 miles on it at delivery. 230 miles now after fillup and reset trip/mpg. Showing average 37 mpg now (slowly climbing all day). About 70% California freeway driving around 70 mph, A/C on the whole time. So am I looking at maybe 45 mpg after the engine break-in? That would be very cool to get, and without a hybrid. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: shneor (Sep 06, 2008 10:44 am) That doesn't mean the amount of fuel used hardly increases. The extra aero drag created as speeds go up increases in an exponential way. Also... RPMs should increase by more than 500 for every 15 MPH in a fit, in fifth gear. That is more than "hardly" to me.
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Sep 06, 2008 10:14 pm)  I agree, The wind drag would be considerable at the speeds reported. I suspect the "fill up" after that particular trip was one of those "flukes" we all experience from time to time.  shneor, I drive our Pilot and am very particular how I refuel. Run the pump on the lowest "auto" setting. Go 1 click after the initial shut off. Try to use the same pump, and in the cool of the morning. With my typical local driving, the mileage is most always 17-19 MPG. However it has ranged from 14 to 21 with identical driving patterns and conditions. ? ? ? Fuel tanks contain an air pocket, as the filler tube generally goes into the side of the tank. It is high, but still in the side. With our two cars, when the right front wheel is lower than the rest of the car it will hold more fuel. Apparently the tilt of the car allows more air to escape from the tank during the fill up, which allows more gas to go in. Kip |
|
|
|
| Over the first five tanks of gas in our new Fit, the average mileage is 39.4 mpg, calculated as total mile divided by total gallons. The car is a manual and we usually drive without the AC. Driving is about 70% suburban and country driving, 20% city and 10% highway. No complaints. | |
|
Just visited automobiles.honda.com and the site lists the 2009 manual as having worse mileage than the automatic. Click here for specs This was surprising; I guess the computer that determines auto shifts gives more optimal shifts than the manual can allow, despite the added weight of an auto transmission. But what was additionally perplexing was that the Fit Sport gets 1-2 mpg worse both city/hwy mileage than the Fit base, even with the same automatic transmission. Is the Fit Sport that much heavier? Or is it the paddleshifters? There was no mileage difference listed between the Fit base and Fit Sport with the first generation.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fgeney (Sep 15, 2008 9:45 am) It amounts to the fact that the automatic has taller gearing than the manual (allowing the engine to run at a lower RPM at higher speeds). They gear the manual shorter to prevent the driver from having to manually downshift too much all the time on the highway (more usable power is available the higher the RPMs are, so downshiting is required less).
|
|
|
|
|
50% highway, 50% back roads at 45 mph (no stopping); conservative on acceleration; top speed 65 mph. I'd sacrifice available performance for fuel economy! |
|
|
|
|
i've owned my new '08 base Fit [manual tranny] for 6 weeks. i've put 3100 miles on it. most of the time i average 33.5 mpg. the highest i can remember having = 37mpg. i drive carefully, no rip-roaring starts off of the line. though at times on the hwy i do 80mph steadily. i never go faster than 80. i'd love to get 45mph! |
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Sep 15, 2008 1:47 pm) Ah, of course. That makes sense. I would also guess, then, that the '09 automatic would be significantly less peppy than the manual? anyone have acceleration numbers? the slightly worse mileage might be worthwhile if the manual is notably quicker. I'm surprised that Honda didn't offer a six speed manual, but I would venture that it's in the works for later years, since competitor Nissan Versa has one. Anyway, I'm still wondering why the Sport is 1-2 mpg worse in mileage than the base Fit. There is a weight difference, but not huge. I wonder what items on the Sport add the most weight? Could there be anything besides weight that makes the Sport get worse mileage, with the same transmission? |
|
|
Replying to: fgeney (Sep 16, 2008 6:25 am) A skilled driver can get better mileage with the MT in city or local driving. However most drivers are not as "skilled" as they think and the AT shifting logic may win out. On the road the torque convertor locks up and doesn't slip any longer. Road RPM at a given speed will be lower with the AT due to the higher overall gearing. Another gear would help both the AT and the MT. Kip
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hatchbacks Honda Fit Honda Fit Real World MPG
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Honda Fit
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
