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
2435 messages, Last post on Nov 30, 2009 at 12:02 PM
You are in the Honda Fit Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: kipk (Sep 16, 2008 7:29 am)
|
|
|
2009 Sport Auto. 1st fill 192 miles, 4.98g = 38.55mpg, computer said 43.2. 2nd fill 244 miles, 7.38g = 33mpg. Computer said 38.1. I am a pretty conservative driver used to milking vehicles for best mpg. This represents about 50% highway vs city. This is a bit perplexing. Why is my math nearly 5mpg worse than the computer shows? The first fill was just a top off as I couldn't stand the mpg curiosity and I wanted to start with a tank I filled since I couldn't be sure how full the dealer filled. I just fill until the pump clicks off. I bought the auto based on the better mpg rating. I'm not sure this is valid at this point. I did not realize the Sport was rated worse than the Base. I probably would have bought a base if I would have known this. |
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Sep 16, 2008 8:04 am) If the final drive is the same, and the overall diameter of the Sport tires is more than the Base, there is more mass to get into motion and could hurt "City". However on the road the Sport would be turning fewer RPM at a given speed, as the tires are traveling a little farther with each revolution. Here is an example. On an old Chevy van that we used for camper towing at 2500 RPM we were moving 58 mph. However, with any 10 mile stretch of X-way mile markers, the odometer would show we had been 10.7 miles. Next time we got tires I went with a much larger set as we were not camping any longer. The tach still showed 2500 at 58 mph. Which it should. But the odometer now shows we traveled 9.9 miles. If the readings with the smaller tires had of been accurate (10 miles), then changing to the larger tires would have then shown we had only been 9.2 miles., instead of the 10 we actually traveled. So instead of getting the 16 mpg, the odometer reading divided by gallons would have been more like 14.6. So did Honda re calibrate for any differences in overall tire size? Only measuring with mileage markers or using a GPS for actual miles driven, when compared to the odometer, would tell for sure. Putting larger diameter tires on any car without re calibrating the odometer, will show a drop in MPG even though it may not have actually changed. The ground effects and spoiler on the Fit Sport may also cause some additional drag.  Kip |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fgeney (Sep 16, 2008 6:25 am) The previous Fit Sport looked like this, as tested by Motor Trend magazine: 5AT - 11.4s to 60 MPH 5MT - 8.7s to 60 MPH A large difference, but you must account for launch technique, as well. The manual can have the clutch dropped at a high RPM to get some wheelspin, which helps times for acceleration versus an automatic.
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Sep 16, 2008 11:53 am) |
|
|
Sept 14-15 we drove our 08 Fit Sport w/auto trans (which had only 2000 miles on it when we started) from Omaha, NE to Minneapolis, MN, and back. Total miles was about 800 (90% Interstate driving) and overall fuel economy was 39.5 MPG. 2 adults w/total weight of 300 lbs, 50 lbs luggage, windows up, A/C on about 2/3 of the time, cruise control on, average speed around 70 MPH, mixture of rolling hills and flatland. One segment of 263 miles from Omaha to Mason City, IA (via Interstates 80 east and 35 north) we got 45.2 MPG, driving at 63-65 MPH with cruise on and no A/C. Conservative driving throughout the trip, no fast/hard acceleration on the entrance ramps and no hard braking/stops. Conclusion we came to is that you can exceed the EPA mileage estimates if you are able to control a combination of a number of factors that can increase mileage. We did not try any of the strange "hypermiler" techniques we've been reading about, such as not braking through curves (i.e., too fast for them) or coasting down hills in neutral or even shutting off the engine down hills or when stopped, or "drafting on the tail of semitruck trailers (highly dangerous). Yes, there are bigger/heavier cars that can get better fuel economy than the Fit, but how many of them are more fun to drive? And how many of them can you buy new for $16-18K? For the "bang for you buck" factor, the Fit gets pretty high marks in my book.
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Sep 16, 2008 11:53 am) Exactly ! Also a considerable time can be dropped from the AT 0-60 time by holding the left foot on the brake and giving enough throttle to "Pump up" the torque converter to a point of one of the front wheels actually turning slightly. This would enable the car to "leave" with more RPM, thus more horse power. Doubt if many or any of the car rags do that!  Kip
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Sep 17, 2008 4:21 am) This would enable the car to "leave" with more RPM, thus more horse power. Doubt if many or any of the car rags do that! Actually, I believe I've read that they do! Many rags (such as MotorTrend) use whatever means to get the fastest time possible, and make no bones about it. Consumer reports does not, however. They simply put foot to the floor. Their numbers are probably a good judgment for 99% of the people out there, since that's how most people drive. |
|
|
Replying to: fitisgo (Sep 16, 2008 6:46 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dawsonmp (Sep 17, 2008 9:20 am) Because those cars tend be faster than the Fit without having to drive foot-to-the-floor.  I have driven both a 2008 and the new 2009 Fit. They make my 130hp Accord feel fast, but they are neat cars that are fun to drive; it is just that forward progress isn't the reason they're fast. Go-Carts are fun but don't go fast. 
|
|
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
Today's Chats
