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: 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. |
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Mar 26, 2009 2:16 am) First law dictates that one many not create or destroy energy, only transfer it. Hill-climbing raises the car's potential energy that is converted back into kinetic energy upon descent. Second law says these processes must incur some energy loss to the outside world. For a car, wind resistance, friction, noise, heat from brakes, cooling system, exhaust are among these irreversible losses. (Hybrids achieve better mileage by capturing and storing energy that would have been dissipated by braking or rolling losses). A roller coaster illustrates the first law: speeds up going downhill as potential turns into kinetic energy (momentum), then slows again on climbing as kinetic energy is stored as potential. In cars, the efficiency of conversion of fuel to energy varies with load. Generally, lower power and steady-state (i.e., no change in power) yields higher efficiency. An engine running faster faces higher losses from larger volumes of exhaust, shorter power stroke duration, gearing loss in lower gears, greater heat transfer from combustion products to coolant and exhaust, etc. This translates into lower efficiency. It is possible but unlikely that an engine performs better at higher load than what is required for steady-state cruising. For that case, the power-then-coast method would improve mileage. But in general, given that no net energy is gained or lost from the inclines, wind and rolling resistance do not vary significantly from flat, the lower efficiency of the typical power plant on inclines will translate into lower mileage on hills.
|
|
|
Hi Everyone: Just completed a road trip from our home on the San Francisco Peninsula to San Diego and back. The Sport Auto Fit worked very well as a freeway cruiser - even better than I thought it would. On the way down, with three of us in the car, we averaged 39.7 (computer) despite going 80-85 mph on Interstate 5. Driving around LA and the Palmdale desert, I was pleasantly surprised to get just under 42, despite climbing a few mountain passes up to about 4k'. I did not baby it. On the way home on highway 101 we got about 37. A beautiful time to drive through California. All green with wild flowers everywhere. Byron
|
|
|
Replying to: wistlo (Mar 26, 2009 8:53 am)
|
|
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
