Ask the Car People.SM


Honda Fit Real World MPG

2554 messages,  Last post on Apr 21, 2013 at 3:55 AM

You are in the Honda Fit Forum.

What is this discussion about? Honda Fit, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), Hatchback

Messages Page 256 of 256

#2545 of 2554 Re: High MPG Fit alternatives [mebman] by clewis3

Mar 22, 2008 (6:49 am)

Replying to: mebman (Mar 05, 2008 8:07 pm)
I am car shopping and the Fit is top on my list. But in reading various forums, I am gathering that real world mpg might be more consistently better with the Yaris. Does anyone have any experience to validate or invalidate that observation?
 
Specifically, I am talking automatic .... (hip problem is forcing me to switch from a 2000 manual Saturn SL which actually gets darn good mileage... 31-42 mpg depending on conditions).

#2546 of 2554 Re: High MPG Fit alternatives [clewis3] by jacksan1

Mar 22, 2008 (8:12 am)

Replying to: clewis3 (Mar 22, 2008 6:49 am)
While not a direct experience, my observation of anecdotal evidence tells me that it is actually the Yaris that gets a consistently better mileage. Or should I say that the Yaris seems to experince a smaller rate of mileage fluctuations than the Fit. Both vehicles are capable of and have achieved excellent numbers such as over 40 MPG in some circumstances. However, my various readings, including some auto review articles, different internet sites including fueleconomy.gov, lead me to believe that the bottom is less likely to fall off of the Yaris. What I mean is that it appears to be tough to get a low mileage in a Yaris, while with the Fit, especially with an AT, it is not that tough to "ruin" your mileage.
 
We own a Fit Sport with AT, and have noticed that the mileage can really suffer if you let the VTEC have its own way (fun but you pay for it). Also, the Fit seems to have a relatively narrow sweet spot where you can get an excellent mileage. If you are driving in the zone, however, the Fit can deliver some amazing numbers, and we have certainly had many of those.

#2547 of 2554 Re: High MPG Fit alternatives [jacksan1] by clewis3

Mar 23, 2008 (5:23 am)

Replying to: jacksan1 (Mar 22, 2008 8:12 am)
Thank you, jacksan1, for your clarity in posts (both here and in other threads). Your info really helps both in the overview and the specifics!

#2548 of 2554 Re: High MPG Fit alternatives [clewis3] by fitisgo

Mar 23, 2008 (8:34 am)

Replying to: clewis3 (Mar 22, 2008 6:49 am)
I own 2 Fit Sport automatics; however they are only 3 months and 2 weeks old, so I can't give you any long-term info but I can report some initial gas mileage readings. Both are automatics. The 3-month old Sport has about 3,000 miles on it and is driven by my 20 yr old son, who is quite a leadfoot and does a lot of in-town driving. His fuel economy readings have ranged anywhere from 22-29 MPG, which probably represents the lower end of the scale for real world results. The 2 wk old sport I drive as a commute to from work on a 12 mile 1-way route that is 10 miles highway and 2 miles city. I am a conservative driver and keep up with traffic but also aim to be very smooth/even on both the accelerator and the brake pedal. My first reading after 300 miles was 33.3 mpg, which is just above both the 2008 city (27 MPG) and highway (32 MPG) EPA ratings for the Sport with the automatic (I don't use the shifter paddles on the steering wheel and let the transmission do its own thing). I would expect that the majority of drivers would get real-world fuel economy results somewhere between these 2 examples. The one exception may be a long highway trip using cruise control at about 65 mph an an Interstate that is mostly flat and straight. I haven't tried this yet, but living in Omaha, NE, there will be plenty of opportunities to do so and report the results here afterword.

#2549 of 2554 Re: Honda Fit vs. Honda Fit Sport MPG [mklimo13] by mountainmike

Sep 25, 2011 (7:54 pm)

Replying to: mklimo13 (Jul 31, 2011 10:40 am)
Mike,
 
The difference in MPG for the two different models of the 2011 Fit are pretty small and only involve the Automatic Transmission models. The 5 - speed manual is the same MPG: 27 city, 33 mpg highway.
 
The difference is probably (?) due to the small, but cumulative, difference in real-end gear ratios and transmission gear ratios.
 
In my personal, but very limited experience with my 2011 M/T Honda Fit, 60/40 city/highway ration, has been 32 - 33 MPG. My computer recently said "38 MPG" after a "highway only" trip up and down a local hilly area (50 mile trip), but I only quote MPG that are computed by me from actual miles divided by gallons of petrol purchased.
 
Previous to this recent "38 MPG" computer (odometer) readout, the computer said "31.9 MPG" for several hundred miles and several tankfuls of gasoline. So it has been relatively accurate in the recent past, for what ever that is worth!
 
Best Regards,
 
MountainMike

#2550 of 2554 Suggest Use GPS to Check Gas Mileage by andysd

Oct 10, 2011 (12:46 pm)

I haven't read all the postings, but I know from experience that it is worthwhile to check the odometer (and the speedometer) against GPS readings to be accurate and to enable objective comparison with the experience of others. For anyone who hasn't done it, you can zero the trip reading of the GPS at the same time you zero your odometer after filling up, and make your trip miles divided by gallons calculation for mpg using both the GPS and the odometer readings for comparison.
 
I have a low mileage Milano Red 2011 Fit Sport 5MT. My mpg experience is complicated by the fact that I installed 17" Kosei Racing wheels with 215/45-17 Kumho ECSTA SPT tires saved from a 2004 Civic. Therefore, my corrections would not apply to your car.
 
Digressing from mpg, I bought a Fit because of its emergency lane change test results reported in Car and Driver (faster than Porsche, Ferrari, Corvette). Also, its 0-60 8.3 seconds is not totally sluggish, and the engine winds up to max rpm with no strain. I frequently drive the local twisty two lane mountain roads in San Diego East County, and am blown away by my Fit's cornering performance, even compared to friends' Ferraris and a GTI. I've done a few things to the car: the wheels and tires, new horns, back-up distance sensors, more open muffler and tail pipe, chrome dash interior, leather shift knob, new Hertz speakers and amp.
 
Perhaps the result of the wider, stickier tires to me the brakes seem quite effective compared to their poor reported road test results.

#2551 of 2554 Honda Fit by cshuler

Jan 09, 2012 (9:21 pm)

My 2009 Honda Fit Sport has been getting 38 mpg. I have realized tire pressure is a big thing that helps with your mpg.

#2552 of 2554 Fuel economy by 204meca

Feb 16, 2012 (10:12 pm)

2011 Honda Fit Base AT with 6,700 miles. I keep track on Fuely using manual calculations, drive for mileage, but not a hypermiler -- especially my wife who puts on 60% of miles. 50% urban miles & 50% highway. Fit averages average 36.2 mpg; best 42.5 (so far). I believe it will improve with more miles & summer weather.
 
An comparison that might interest some is that I also have 2010 Subaru Outback 2.5 with CVT & 23,000 miles. Average mileage 28.4. Best 34.6 - (this was fluke & it rarely tops 30 mpg).
 
 Not a lot of difference between the overall get up & go of these two, but overall the OB has the edge, especially above 50 mph. Fit gets about 27% better mileage.
 
I really like both these cars for what they are & are satisfied with both. But I find it pretty amazing that the FWD Fit which weights about 800 lbs less & has significantly smaller engine can only go 27% further on a gallon of gas than the signficantly larger & more comfortable AWD Outback. Way to go SOA

#2553 of 2554 Re: Fuel economy [204meca] by carattorney

Feb 17, 2012 (12:34 am)

Replying to: 204meca (Feb 16, 2012 10:12 pm)
While it’s a good car, there is nothing amazing about SOA fuel performance. It’s really a lesson in physics, weight, and momentum. What an automobile engineer would tell you in simple terms--and this is a concept many folks don't understand: It takes a smaller engine a lot more energy to move a mass from 0 acceleration than a larger engine therefore it burns more fuel to do so. The decreased weight of the Fit is really insignificant--its dead weight from a stop. The savings in fuel in the Fit (or any small engine car) comes in after the car has achieved a certain momentum. If all we did was stop and go all day, your MPG would be worse than if the FIT had a larger engine.

#2554 of 2554 2012 Base Fit with AT by kipk

Apr 21, 2013 (3:55 am)

Everyday local driving yields 34-36 mpg. Calculated mileage is about 1/2 -1 mpg lower than the displayed mileage. As a comparison, Our 09 Ridgeline averages 16-18 mpg in same terrain. The wifes 09 Rav4 (4 cylinder AT) averages 22-24 mpg.
 
This car has become the ride of choice most of the time. Not only because of it getting the best fuel mileage, but the ease of parking, and quick handling, make it fun to drive.
 
Examined a lot of small hatchbacks and drove a few. Actually liked some of them better than the Fit. And some got better "indicated" mpg on the test drive. Some had more comfortable and more adjustable seats, and quieter cabins. But they didn't "FIT" the needs!
 
Needed a small car with low seat height, so 92 yr old mom could get in and out with ease. Also needed room for a Rollator (walker with 4 wheels) and a wheel chair at the same time. And while carrying a driver and 2 passengers.
 
I chose the Fit because the Rollator will go behind the rear seat, through the hatch, without folding it. At the same time a wheel chair can be folded and put in (rolled in) the driver side rear door with that seat bottom up and a passenger on the passenger side rear seat.
 
Can't do all that, that easy, even with my wifes '09 Rav4.
 
Kip

Messages Page 256 of 256

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement