Last post on Apr 21, 2013 at 3:55 AM
You are in the Honda Fit
What is this discussion about?
Honda Fit, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), Hatchback
Mar 02, 2011 (7:13 pm)
Everyone's self-calculated mpg results would be best posted at www.fueleconomy.gov
#2515 of 2554 City and Highway MPG
Mar 03, 2011 (10:59 am)
Another miscalculation people often make is that if drive 50% city and 50% highway and get 20mpg in the city and 40mpg on the highway, they think their average mpg is 30, but it's not.
Say you drive 100 miles: 50 miles of pure city driving at 20mpg uses 2.5 gallons of gas, and 50 miles of pure highway at 40 mpg uses 1.25 gallons of gas. So that means you used 3.75 gallons of gas to drive the 100 miles which equals 26.7mpg, not 30mpg.
So the poorer city mpg pull down the average more than the higher highway mpg. It would be better if we calculated gallons per 100 miles (GP100M) driven, instead of miles per gallon (MPG).
In the above example, we'd get 5.0 GP100M for city and 2.5 GP100M for highway and then the halfway point between 5.0GP100M city & 2.5 GP100M for highway would be 3.75 GP100M exactly.
This is the way gas mileage is calculated in Europe (liters per 100km), but like the metric system, it will never catch on here.
#2516 of 2554 Re: City and Highway MPG [bobw3]
Mar 03, 2011 (12:23 pm)
bobw3, that's definitely a trick of math I never caught before either. I just know that a small percentage of city driving can brutally drive down "long trip" style mileage. Right now I am focusing on cars that have good city mileage, since that is my driving pattern now.
For example, the new 2012 Ford Focus has highway mileage surpassing many small cars (talking about the regular, not the special, edition). BUT city mileage is significantly lower, which will bring down the overall average more, for a primarily city driver.
Conversely, the Fiat500 is lambasted for not breaking 40 highway mpg, but I am highly impressed by the 30 mpg city, I can't think of another non-diesel, non-hybrid to match it.
Of course the Fiat500 would be even more torture than our 2 door Rabbit for the kids in the back. While the Fit would be minivan luxurious (they are small kids after all).
EPA city mileage for the Fit is 27 manual, 28 auto. Consumer Reports tested mileage is 24 manual, 21 auto, which confirms my experience with other autos that sticks come closer to EPA city ratings than automatics, but neither one makes their EPA ratings, especially when you get to the higher rated vehicles.
#2517 of 2554 disappointed in latest cars mileage
Mar 05, 2011 (10:55 am)
I'm not sure why the latest cars don't get better mileage. I have a '93 Saturn, which weighs about the same as a Fit. By the looks of things, it's at least as big on the inside as a Fit. (Which I might be interested in as my next car.) I've never gotten less than 28mph (in 12 years of ownership). At least, not unless I'm pulling a small trailer. More typically, I get 32 to 34mpg and I drive pretty fast on the highway. (65 to 75mph, sometimes a bit more, this, after all, is eastern Massachusetts). On slower, long trips at 60-65mph I'll get maybe 35mpg or so, maybe a touch better. This is with several different sets of tires, and on occasion I've checked the odometer against mileage markers. It's quite close.
I recommend you all get time machines and go back to purchase '93 SL1's. And maybe some extra parts. They're getting harder to find.
#2518 of 2554 Re: disappointed in latest cars mileage [lrp28]
Mar 05, 2011 (1:58 pm)
My friend, she loves her Saturn and does not want to give it up. She has had a few Saturns including the convertible sport model. I personally love the look of that one--has some of the Corvette lines.
Shame GM shut Saturn down, but GM is notorious for making bad decisions.
#2519 of 2554 Trying New Spark Plugs
Mar 05, 2011 (2:42 pm)
I now have 105K miles on my '07 FIT Sport. No mechanical problems at all at this point. Still very tight, no excessive or premature tire wear issues either. My average MPG has been 33, So. Cal. freeway driving ~80MPH max.
I was told of and have just purchased and installed a set of sparkplugs that a friend of mine claim really improved his MPG. The name of the plug is Pulstar. I will post results after a few months of running with them. Obviously, normally, anytime new plugs go in, some improvement should be noticed. So we'll record the results and report back to you.
BTW, make sure you change your auto trans fluid regularly and use the Honda type fluid. Glue a magnet on the end of your drain plug. You'll be amazed what you capture.
#2520 of 2554 Re: Super unleaded vs Reg. unleaded [hondafitfan]
Mar 08, 2011 (10:49 pm)
I have tried Chevron Supreme Unleaded and compared it to Chevron Regular Unleaded over several thousands of miles, and could NOT detect any statistical difference in my Miles Per Gallon (MPG). All MPG were calculated from the actual odometer miles divided by the total fuel consumed, to the third decimal place (that's the receipt read-out). I did not have a car equipped with a highly questionable "MPG computer", like the Fit. I was using a MY 2000 Subaru Forester with a 5 speed tranny.
I am very suspicious of people who claim their cars "have more power" and "get better mileage" with Premium fuel. The rationale behind Premium Auto Fuel is a slower-burning fuel with less tendency to pre-ignite (ping). At the minimal price over regular (presently around $0.20 / gallon), you can't expect anything that is going to be very performance-enhancing.
I would tend to believe there is more of a mileage difference - and performance difference, too - if you compared ethanol-free gasoline with the "gasohol" crap that we in California are forced to put in our engines. All Calif. gas has 10% ethanol in it at present. Some states allow the 91/92 (Premium) gasoline to be alcohol-free to eliminate the ethanol-induced problems in small engines (Lawn mowers, snow blowers, etc.) and other engines that cannot tolerate ethanol mixtures. A whole thread could be on this subject, alone!
If you have a high-compression engine, like the old 1970 BMW 2002 I used to have, then a higher octane fuel is required to allow the engine to have a ping-free acceleration or "pulling power". Oh yeah, you might be able to retard the distributor so you can burn regular, but in that case you are giving up engine performance to get rid of the "pinging" or pre-ignition.
Just my two cents.
#2521 of 2554 Re: disappointed in latest cars mileage [lrp28]
May 10, 2011 (7:14 am)
I agree, I had a '99 Saturn and wanted a 4 door so I bought a 2010 Honda Fit sport model, standard. My Saturn averaged around 31 or 32 mpg, while my fit is averaging 33.8, and it actually weighs less then my Saturn did. I don't understand how in 11 years they haven't made hardly any improvements. I should have kept my $4,000 car instead of paying the $16,000 for the new one.
#2522 of 2554 Re: disappointed in latest cars mileage [pendesigns88]
May 12, 2011 (5:40 pm)
So you're complaining because your Fit is meeting the EPA estimated MPG? Maybe you should have read the EPA sticker before purchasing. Are you sure your Saturn AVERAGED 31-32MPG, or was that just on long road trips?
#2523 of 2554 Re: disappointed in latest cars mileage [bobw3]
May 12, 2011 (7:40 pm)
The Saturn was sort of a turtle in terms of acceleration with the base engine. The Fit accelerates well, better than almost all other tiny cars except the MINI.
I am also not sure that the Fit is that much lighter than the Saturn, since in the decades since the Saturn cars have generally gotten heavier.
The Fit is certainly more useful.