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 vs Honda Civic
237 messages, Last post on Oct 29, 2008 at 2:15 PM
You are in the Honda Fit Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: backy (Dec 19, 2007 8:31 am) Civic AT - 30.9 mpg, 59 samples Civic MT - 31.5 mpg, 20 samples Fit AT - 32.8 mpg, 26 samples Fit MT - 35.4 mpg, 39 samples Something interesting though... the Fit Sport AT is averaging only 30.0 mpg with 47 samples. I wonder if this is an example of how driving style affects mpg, i.e. those who choose a "sport" model might drive more aggressively than those who drive the base model? Hmmm....
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Dec 19, 2007 9:43 am) |
|
...of a power increase is the more powerful version Fit supposed to get?
|
|
|
Replying to: bottgers (Dec 20, 2007 1:26 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: mjoshi (Dec 16, 2007 6:55 am) From a rolling turn in second gear, I get to 60-65 by the end of the on ramp. The limit is 75 MPH were I live, but it really only takes another 5 seconds to get near that. And traffic in the right lane is never that fast anyway. I've never felt the car was underpowered to do anything remotely normal on the freeway. I cruise at about 80 mph for 10 miles. Yes, there is road noise. It's not like my wife's TSX, which itself has lower profile tires. Yes, there is some wind noise. I've never found either to be distracting or overwhelming. I've never found the handling or "weight" to be unsafe, up to 85 mph that is. Never gone over that. So 10 miles at 80 mph (3000 rpm on an AT), then the rest your typical rush hour freeway: pockets of 40 mph, then a 1/2 mile of bumper-to-bumper, then some 15 mph, etc. I get 36 MPG this way. If I do a whole tank at 65-75, I get 38 easily. 330 miles between fill-ups.
|
|
| all the light rail construction has created a rattle in the dash. Top center. Need to get that fixed, under warranty I hope. | |
|
|
|
Replying to: fitman548 (Dec 21, 2007 12:21 pm) Thanks for your report, but it indicates that you are pumping only 8.7 gallons when you fill (330/38=8.7). Is that correct? Are you really stopping for gas with 2.1 gallons left in the tank? Is it indicating empty or are you just very conservative with extending the range?
|
|
|
Wonder if the Fit will/would possibly share the 1.8L engine with the Civic. Possibly as an option in the Sport, if nothing else. Since it is not unusual to see "Real World" mpg numbers for the Fit and Civic so close, it would seem that moving up to the 1.8L would be a win-win for the Fit. EPA average numbers are 25/36 Civic and 27/33 for the Fit. Comparing the Civic and Fit automatics show the Civic being 220+/- # heavier than the Fit. Fit has a bit more frontal area, which could be the reason for the Fit dropping off a bit of MPG at highway speeds , compared to the Civic. Or it could be that the 1.5L simply is working hard and would also drop some MPG if in the Civic at highway speeds. Has anyone seen/heard anything solid on the possibility of more power/mpg for the Fit model change next year? Kip
|
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Dec 24, 2007 4:00 am) However, I don't know why a larger, more powerful engine would help the Fit when cruising on the highway. Highway cruising takes very little horsepower. Maybe better aerodynamics would help the Fit there. The new Fit does look a little sleeker than the current model, but I don't know the respective drag coefficients. Also, the Fit's EPA fuel economy is actually better than that of the Civic. The Fit averaged 31 mpg for the MT and 30 mpg for the AT, according to the EPA. The Civic averages 29 mpg for both the MT and AT.
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Dec 24, 2007 7:38 am) Certainly not disputing any of your post. Just exploring some possibilities.  According to https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do With the automatics, which are more interest to me than the manual shifts: Fit..... Real world 32.8--21--43....EPA 30--27--35 Civic...Real world 30.9--22--42....EPA 29--25--36 Notice that Real world FIT drivers are averaging 1.9 better. However, Their lowest (city) is actually lower than the heavier Civic and the highway is 1 better. What we don't know is "HOW" they are driven. ie, does the driver of the Civic tend to drive faster on the road do to better handling, at speed, and less road noise? Does the Fit run a little harder in the "burbs" do to it's quickness and fun to drive status? My point is, that with the extra 250+pounds of the Civic and the larger engine, it still gets extremely close to the Fit in mileage. Makes me wonder if that 1.8L engine, as is, in a lighter car could get even better mileage than it is getting in the Civic. Also there would be the benefit of better performance. Even if the 1.5L receives a 10% boost, it still falls short of the 1.8L in standard output. Increasing HP of a proven engine, often times results in poorer mileage. Often times that HP boost comes with an increase in RPM to achieve the results. It performs better, but gets poorer mileage. The Civic Si would be an example of that. Certainly would like to think that Honda wishes to hang on to it's "Best Fuel Mileage" status, but will they? Just some ramblings!  Thanks, Kip
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hatchbacks Honda Fit Honda Fit vs Honda Civic
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Honda Fit
2011 Honda Civic
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
