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
|
On a road trip from the Gulf Coast to Pittsburgh during Mardi Gras (last week of Feb), our 2009 FIt got between 34 and 38 MPG. We had driver + two passengers (about 450 lb, don't ask about weight distribution, please), luggage, toys, about 50 lb of bottled water. Tires were at 38 PSI, up from the 32 recommended. Terrain was rolling hills, almost entirely on cruise control. Sporadic A/C use with defroster. Mileage definitely depends on speed; 60-65 yields near 38 MPG, 70 MPH about 34. Coasting: On a 2001 CIvic manual with a OBDII meter connected, I noticed that fuel flow seems to drop to near zero when decelerating with the engine engaged. (I have not tried this on the Fit yet). I theorize that if the throttle is at idle (no pedal), the ECU will reduce or shut off fuel flow as long as engine speed is over idle speed. On both Hondas (Fit & Civic) I have stopped coasting with clutch disengaged, which requires the engine to idle under its own power, and I now keep the car in gear during deceleration. It is difficult to tell whether this makes a significant difference in consumption. After the trip with the Fit, the left front tire developed a bubble in the sidewall. This wasn't covered by the OEM warranty, but fortunately I took out a road-hazard warranty when I bought the car. The warranty people would not cover a sidewall bubble unless there was damage to the inside of the tire. The tire technician helped me find a very small split near the bubble site. The Fit Sport's tire size, 185-55-16, is not common (in fact, I think the Fit is the only car using it, so far). I had to drive for a day with the bubble while waiting for it to come in by special order. |
|
wonder if the high 38 PSI had anything to do with the tire bubble. Seems way too high, even for 100% highway driving, than the recommended 32psi. Any variance in temperature could've brought it even higher, which is not good for tires.
|
|
|
Replying to: gatortom1 (Feb 03, 2009 1:45 pm) The computer provides the current gas mileage (in the moment). Unless you maintain a given mileage reading over the entire range of a tankfull of gas, you will find that the actual mileage (calculated the old fashioned way) is about 3 mpg less than the computer reads when you stop for fill-up. This has been my experience with predominant highway driving in an 09 Fit Sport. In town driving my vary even more depending on how you drive. Overall, I find the Fit gas mileage quite sensitive to the speeds maintained. At 80-85 mph on the highway I can consistently get 30-31 (real) mpg. Lower speeds 60-65 can produce 37-40 (real) mpg. In town is around 26-28 without trying too hard.
|
|
|
Replying to: seaf (Mar 12, 2009 12:54 pm) Low profile tires (for the Fit Sport, 55 series, meaning the tire is 55% as tall as it is wide) I suspect are more susceptible to damage from striking discontinuities in the road surface. The older Civic has same width (185) but are 65 series, and those tires soak up bumps with more compliance. The lower profile does give the Fit lightning-fast, go-kart like steering response. It is a true pleasure to drive. We have studiously avoided the legions of potholes in post-Katrina New Orleans. I suspect the damage was done by a large unexpected gouge on I-65 N just south of Cincinnati. (Middle lane, left side). |
|
|
Replying to: rterry (Mar 20, 2009 7:03 am) BTW, my measured MPG for the first 4,000 miles or so has been roughly 36 mpg with 70% city/suburban, 30% freeway mileage. 
|
|
| About 5800 miles on 09 Fit Sport Auto in Alaska. MPG 33 using math. Computer is about 20% higher. Since Nov I've run Michelin Xi i2 snow tires (awesome) on Civic steel rims purchased form the Honda dealer for something like $55 each. Size 185 / 60 15". The Alaska cold and road conditions may influence mpg | |
|
Replying to: cmobi (Mar 10, 2009 9:25 pm) And if the effort of going uphill was offsetted by coasting downhill, then you might want to ask a biker if it's easier to pedal 10 miles on flat ground or up and down hills...they'll tell you that it takes much less energy to go a given distance on flat ground than up and down hills. And likewise for a car it takes more energy to go up and down hills. It's the "objects in motion tend to stay in motion" theory, so once you have a vehicle at a certain speed, it doesn't take much energy to maintain that speed. What you may want to try to test this is drive a couple of hundred miles on a flat highway. Once at a constant 55mph and the other doing your accelaration/coasting method and then manually calculate your MPG and report back. |
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Mar 24, 2009 7:42 am) I've seen it firsthand with other cars too--the best tank I ever had with my old Focus hatchback was 39 mpg driving for a whole day in the mountains in Colorado. Coasting downhill with it in 3rd or 4th, I could go for miles at a time without touching the gas pedal at all, and it definitely seemed to outweigh the extra gas used during short bursts of climbing. |
|
|
Replying to: huisj (Mar 25, 2009 8:37 am) Our "Scan Gauge" is in our Pilot. While using cruise control, on flat ground at 60 mpg, we get 28-30 mpg depending on the very slight variations in road, wind and so forth. . On a long steep uphill grade, the mileage may drop to 12 mpg and the transmission has found it's way back to 3rd gear. Going down the other side, maintaining the same speed, the mileage may show 9999 mpg, as the default. Indicating we are getting more than 100 mpg. Transmission may have stayed in 5th, or grade logic may have geared down to 4th. In the case of these steep grades, common sense says that the gravity we fight going up, helps us when going down. If it was only 100 mpg going down, and 12 mpg up, the pencil average for the 2 would be 56 mpg. Which is much better than flat ground driving. On rolling hills, the mpg may show 22 up and 54 going down. Pencil Average 38 mpg. Still better than flat ground. But not as good as the steep terrain. These 2 examples indicate the best mileage occurs with the steepest grades. All that looks good on the "Instant MPG" gauge and on paper. But switching back to the "Trip MPG" is a reality check. It doesn't reflect that great mileage. I do not understand why !  Fact is, that in real world, the best mileage is achieved with a steady foot, or cruise, on flat ground at lower speeds. (55-60 mph). Worse mileage with the steepest terrain. At the end of the trip/day, the SG and calculator agree with this. It has to do with math and things way over my head.  Kip
|
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Mar 26, 2009 2:16 am) "If it was only 100 mpg going down, and 12 mpg up, the pencil average for the 2 would be 56 mpg." You're calculating your MPG wrong. If you drove 100 miles uphill at 12mpg that equals 8.3 gallons of gas used. If you drove 100 miles downhill at 100mpg that equals 1 gal used. So for the 200 miles driven you used 9.3 gal of gas and 200/9.3 = 21.5mpg average, not 56mpg average. Or best case and you use zero gallons on the 100 miles of downhill, then for the 200 miles you used 8.3 gallons, or 24.1mpg average over the 200 miles It's a common MPG calculation flaw. That if you drive 1/2 the miles at 20mpg and 1/2 the miles at 40mpg then your average MPG is 30...wrong because it's miles per gallon, not gallons per mile. Now if you use on gallon of gas at 20mpg and then drive the next gallon of gas at 40mpg, then your average MPG will be 30mpg because for the 1 gal at 20mpg you'll have driven 20 miles and then the next gallon you'll have driven 40 miles, which equals 60 miles using 2 gal which equals 30mpg. Just remember that MPG stands for Miles Per Gallons and not Gallons Per Mile. Bottom line is that if you're only getting 12mpg on the uphills even if you shut the car off on the downhills you're still only achieving 24mpg average, which is much worse then a steady 55mph on flat terrain. |
|
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
