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
2432 messages, Last post on Oct 29, 2009 at 4:50 AM
You are in the Honda Fit Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Sep 17, 2008 9:24 am) 2888 lbs./130 HP Accord = 22.22 lbs./HP (Edmunds data) 2432 lbs./109 HP Fit = 22.31 lbs/HP Pretty even. Yea my old Accord LX Coupe Automatic felt pretty fast until I got beat by a 4.0L Ford Ranger. As far as fast goes, I used to think 10 second cars were fast until I saw 6 second ones (at the track, of course). Then the 10 second ones looked like traffic going by on the highway. Subjective.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dawsonmp (Sep 17, 2008 10:04 am) Around town, my Accord feels much peppier because of the available torque. To be fair, I know my Accord isn't fast. On an open road with a 65 MPH limit and a red light I actually did a standing start timed 0-60 run; it did it in 9.9 seconds (about 1.5s faster than the old Fit). Not a big deal since neither car is going to be raced. And before you ask; no, I'm not a race-car type driver. I'm usually right at 5 MPH over the limit, and keep it under 3k RPM in town. That was a rare instance for me!  . Anyway, I've taken us far enough off-topic, and I apologize!  TheGrad |
|
|
Replying to: dawsonmp (Sep 17, 2008 9:48 am) Interior quality, flexibility, and handling are clearly in the Fit's favor though. If acceleration and economy are the only factors then Yaris clearly beats the Fit at least with the 2007-08 models. See the Motor Trend comparison of the 07 Fit, Yaris, and Versa for just one example. I haven't seen a direct comparison of 0-60 and quarter miles times between the 08 and 09 Fit. |
|
|
Replying to: fitman548 (Aug 27, 2008 11:21 am) Then go to msg #53. |
|
| For what its worth, the vesa gets 33-35 MPG mixed driving and is larger and more comfertable than fit/Yaris (For me anyway 6'-3" 260lbs). And from what I can tell its just as flexable with its interior layouts other than its rear seats not folding flat. (really no big deal). | |
|
Replying to: g35john (Sep 22, 2008 10:03 am) Versa does have more room for rear seat passengers, but definitely not as versitale as some others. Mileage for the Versa, according to those reporting on http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ , is 25.6-30.7 average combined for AT. The Fit is 29.9-31.9 mpg average combined for AT. Not enough difference to get excited about, but still a difference. For car poolers, the Versa might be a better choice. For utility it is not. Kip |
|
|
Replying to: g35john (Sep 22, 2008 10:03 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Sep 23, 2008 2:01 pm) Actually had more recalls and minor problems with each of our 2 Hondas than with the Maxima.  Kip |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Sep 23, 2008 2:01 pm) My best friend has 196k miles on his '97 Maxima GXE. I have 184k on my '96 Accord LX. We are on original transmissions, but have both had some repairs (me - radiator, brake master cylinder, cooling fan motor; him - alternator, and now his car is taking a good 5 seconds of cranking to start). For this many miles, though, nobody is complaining. These two car companies have changed a lot in ten years, so I don't know that this means anything.
|
|
|
Took delivery on a 2009 Fit Sport Manual. In my first fuel economy run, the mpg meter displayed 48.9 mpg for roughly 50 miles, but, using tried-and-true fill-up to the top, write down the fuel consumption divide into the trip miles, I got 36.9. One run of over 150 miles registered 42.2 mpg but actually delivered about 28. I proceeded to verify the accuracy of the odometer (NO discernible error in 10 miles of surveyed freeway mileage). In a final trial, over 50 miles the meter read 50.2mpg but, in fact delivered 37.9. I took these facts to my dealer, booked an appointment with the service department and was rewarded with blank stares. Of course, the service guys said that there was no discernible problem and that, somehow, this anomaly was due to the car not being "broken in," and would improve or go away after 1500 miles. Also, they said that measuring fuel mileage was not an exact science and that my expectations were too high for the meters' accuracy. As an engineer, I am baffled as to how an mpg meter can possibly profit from learning my driving habits over 1500 miles. If it doesn't actually measure fuel consumption, what does it measure and what is the correlation? If it does measure fuel consumption, then why would its accuracy improve over time? Even as a rough estimate, a meter that exhibits 25% or more of error either has a design flaw or is broken (mis-adjusted). I called Honda Customer Care, but, though they were unable to tell me how the meter worked or why it might "get better" after 1500 miles, they stuck to the party line about the mysterious improving meter. There is no mention of a break-in accuracy period for the mpg meter in any of the manuals. They couldn't find anything in any of their manuals either. Anyone else experience a hugely optimistic meter in their 2009? You can bet your booties that they would be all over this problem if their meter was 25% pessimistic!
|
|
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
