Last post on Oct 29, 2008 at 2:15 PM
You are in the Honda Civic
What is this discussion about?
Honda Fit, Honda Civic, Hatchback, Sedan
#198 of 237 Re: I guess I didn't realize.... [backy]
Dec 19, 2007 (10:44 am)
One way to control the data integrity with this kind of database is to eliminate the highest and lowest numbers, and take the median with the rest of the data. I have not done so with either the Fit or Civic results in the fueleconomy.gov, but it might be interesting to see.
Dec 20, 2007 (1:26 pm)
...of a power increase is the more powerful version Fit supposed to get?
#200 of 237 Re: How much.... [bottgers]
Dec 20, 2007 (1:33 pm)
#201 of 237 Re: 08 Fit Sport or 08Civic LX [mjoshi]
Dec 21, 2007 (12:21 pm)
Re: highway ride. Not sure what issue specifically you're talking about, so I'll just ramble.
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.
Dec 21, 2007 (12:22 pm)
all the light rail construction has created a rattle in the dash. Top center. Need to get that fixed, under warranty I hope.
#203 of 237 Re: 08 Fit Sport or 08Civic LX [fitman548]
Dec 21, 2007 (5:15 pm)
"If I do a whole tank at 65-75, I get 38 easily. 330 miles between fill-ups."
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?
#204 of 237 More power for Fit ?
Dec 24, 2007 (4:00 am)
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?
#205 of 237 Re: More power for Fit ? [kipk]
Dec 24, 2007 (7:38 am)
The Fit is getting more power for the 2009 MY, about a 10% bump for the 1.5L engine.
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.
#206 of 237 Re: More power for Fit ? [backy]
Dec 25, 2007 (5:02 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!
#207 of 237 Re: More power for Fit ? [kipk]
Dec 25, 2007 (8:39 am)
Even if the 1.5L receives a 10% boost, it still falls short of the 1.8L in standard output.
But the Fit is lighter than the Civic, correct?
Hey, the Accord's I4 gets pretty good fuel economy for a car its size and weight too. Maybe Honda should drop that puppy into the Fit and see what kind of performance and fuel economy would result!