- #31 of 2432
-
Re: don't get it [hfount]
by dewaltdakota
-
May 05, 2006 (12:09 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: hfount (May 05, 2006 9:57 am)
If you're driving with your windows open, instead of using the A/C, then the amount of drag against your car will discount any improvments in mileage you might gain.
|
- #32 of 2432
-
Re: Black 5psd. Sport MT [carfanatic007]
by lecrack
-
May 05, 2006 (12:51 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: carfanatic007 (May 04, 2006 12:00 pm)
Haha...I lucked out. My local dealer called me and said the individual that had the black 5 spd. sport preordered decided they wanted a silver one instead. Talk about lucking out! I would have had to wait until August if I had to order it.
|
- #33 of 2432
-
3rd tank
by johnnyb11
-
May 05, 2006 (4:43 pm)
-
|
|
I just filled up for the 3rd time (890 miles on my sport mt), and this tank was 33.6 mpg. The first was about the same, and the 2nd about 34.5. I am pretty happy with these numbers (but I would love to get some of the numbers I'm reading about here - and I'm not an aggressive driver). How many miles considered to be "broken in?"
|
- #34 of 2432
-
Re: 3rd tank [johnnyb11]
by backy
-
May 05, 2006 (4:57 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: johnnyb11 (May 05, 2006 4:43 pm)
I think I know one reason why the AT drivers seem to be getting higher fuel economy than the MT drivers. I drove a MT and AT back-to-back tonight. At 40 mph cruise, level ground, the MT was at 2400 RPM while the AT was at 1500. At 60 mph cruise, the AT was at about 2250 RPM. I did not get a chance to drive the MT on the highway (long story, will tell elsewhere) but I have ready that the RPMs are in the upper 3000s at highway speeds.
|
- #35 of 2432
-
Re: don't get it [jbwest]
by hfount
-
May 06, 2006 (7:36 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: jbwest (May 05, 2006 11:19 am)
Nah, I live in Florida. No excuses for the mileage. I hope it gets better cause I love the car. Thanks for the responses. I'll post if things improve. By the way wouldn't the rpm difference betweem At and MT have been reflected in the epa ratings.
|
- #36 of 2432
-
Re: don't get it [hfount]
by backy
-
May 06, 2006 (11:50 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: hfount (May 06, 2006 7:36 am)
Not necessarily. "Highway driving" to the EPA is something like 50 mph.
|
- #37 of 2432
-
Gotta take off the lead shoes...
by dewaltdakota
-
May 06, 2006 (12:21 pm)
-
|
Man, I just filled up for the first time, after tooling around for 5 days in my new Fit. Mileage? 28.4! I know why, though - Every time I looked down, I was going 80! This little car feels slow at 60, which makes it too easy to creep up to 80. Good thing I have cruise, or else I'm going to find blue lights behind me before long.
I've had no problems getting 40mpg+ on my Civics in the past, so I don't think I'll have problems getting my mileage up on my Fit (once I get used to slowing down).
|
- #38 of 2432
-
Re: Gotta take off the lead shoes... [dewaltdakota]
by jbwest
-
May 06, 2006 (12:27 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: dewaltdakota (May 06, 2006 12:21 pm)
dewaltdakota, did you get the 28.4 MPG in a manual or an automatic Fit?
|
- #39 of 2432
-
Re: Gotta take off the lead shoes... [dewaltdakota]
by hungarian83
-
May 06, 2006 (8:01 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: dewaltdakota (May 06, 2006 12:21 pm)
I have found the exact same thing to be true. The car feels like it is going incredibly slow at even 65. I am used to driving 75-80 almost always. I am finally getting used to driving at legal speeds because I wanted to treat the car properly during the break-in period. Dropping the speed to 65 or 70 from 80 will do wonders for your fuel consumption.
|
- #40 of 2432
-
Re: Gotta take off the lead shoes... [hungarian83]
by mtngal
-
May 07, 2006 (8:08 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: hungarian83 (May 06, 2006 8:01 pm)
10 days of ownership Sport auto - 1798.5 miles, 49.23 gallons, 36.5 mpg. Two tanks going from sea level to 6,000 feet with the cruise set at 70, then slowed up to 60-65. Some slow-n-go rush hour driving, one tank with some stop-n-go. Some short trips, some city driving. Mostly highway. I'm happy.
|