valetudo

35 City short shfting at 2.5-3k

adamrich33

my wife just got a brand new sport model fit manual. the mpg on this is not impressive. its getting what my turboed gsr gets which is around 30. the best the fit has gotten was 32mpg with 80% interstate and 20% city. driving styles does not seem to affect mpg that much. i thought epa estimate was 35mpg highway. someone made a comment to me that the fuel efficency would increase as the car gets more broke in??? other than the fit looking pretty cool i think she should of got a civic, hell it has more power and the same fuel ratings.........

adamrich33

like i said 32mpg is the best ive seen on the fit, ive heard your claims and others of getting 40+mpg im starting to wander if something is wrong.

Lousy Beans

On weeks I drive the fit I get 42-45mpg
On weeks my wife drives it we get 32-45mpg
There is your problem man

adamrich33

i wish it was that simple it gets the same with whoever drives it. and we both made several atemps to drive carefully just to see what it can get, and we see nothing over 32mpg is it worth contacting the dealer about?

BudgetFitting

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by adamrich33 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">32mpg is it worth contacting the dealer about? </TD></TR></TABLE>

No, because that is what the "average" mpg claimed by Honda; as found on the window sticker of a new Fit.

beatlefit

I think I'm going to be one of those that doesn't get good mpg's. On my first half of tank I've gone 125 miles. I believe though that it's due to the fact that I only make small trips when I drive(it's only a 4 mile round trip to work). Not sure how big of an impact that has though. That's still better than what I was getting with my old SUV, 17 mpg, so I'm not complaining.

BudgetFitting

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by beatlefit &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I believe though that it's due to the fact that I only make small trips when I drive(it's only a 4 mile round trip to work). </TD></TR></TABLE>

Only making short trips of primarily city driving will make a difference in the mpg. To ensure you get the best possible gas milage, make sure you don't do jack rabbit starts, and keep your shift points low in the rpm band if it is manual. (~3000K).

Also remember to not give it too much throttle which accelerating.

KunipshunFit

My tank MPG are averaging 43-45 MPG now that it is getting warmer. I do employ hypermiling techniques to acheive it. But not intensive slowing down, average speed on highway 50-60 mph.
I think as it gets hotter I should break 60 mpg.
Gravity works, why not use it?

BudgetFitting

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by KunipshunFit &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I do employ hypermiling techniques to acheive it.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Which ones?

Some are easy, some are hard to do on public streets, and some are just dumb (like only running enough oil in the engine to meet the low mark on the dipstick).

$amGD3

So which is better guys?

when cruising/slowing down for a red light/stop sign

a)throw it in neutral

b)leave it in gear

BudgetFitting

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by $amGD3 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So which is better guys?

when cruising/slowing down for a red light/stop sign

a)throw it in neutral

b)leave it in gear </TD></TR></TABLE>

When you push in the clutch while in gear it accomplishes the same thing.

sb foto

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by $amGD3 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So which is better guys?

when cruising/slowing down for a red light/stop sign

a)throw it in neutral

b)leave it in gear </TD></TR></TABLE>

leaving it in gear cuts fuel. leaving it in neutral puts it in idle and uses fuel.

CivicWagonRUS

My last tank of mixed driving, about half highway driving 75ish mph, half short city trips yielded 38 mpg. I'm looking forward to taking a longer trip somewhere and trying to keep it around 65mph, that should easily put me over 40mpg.

CivicWagonRUS

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by adamrich33 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">will maybe some people on here are bad at math. cause i think over 40mpg is BS</TD></TR></TABLE>

Nope, you're probably just bad at driving

Fill tank, reset trip meter, drive until light comes on, refill tank, divide #miles over #gallons. How could anyone get that wrong?

adamrich33

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CivicWagonRUS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Nope, you're probably just bad at driving

Fill tank, reset trip meter, drive until light comes on, refill tank, divide #miles over #gallons. How could anyone get that wrong?
</TD></TR></TABLE>

You tell me... I think alot of you guys like to fudge the numbers or something i drive this thing like a granny and get 32mpg. my 91 teg got that. not much of a improvement on mileage after ater 17 years on honda's behalf. not to mention the teg had more power. the fit is a slow terd

dbrd

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by sb foto &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

leaving it in gear cuts fuel. leaving it in neutral puts it in idle and uses fuel. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I guess only Honda can give the definitive answer to this question, but I don't believe it is true. If it were, why do CVT's ramp the engine rpm down to idle when you get off the gas?

One of the key techniques for good fuel mileage is to avoid burning off energy with your brakes, when possible. In other words, drive with the throttle in anticipation of needs to slow or stop. With a MT push in the clutch and coast as you approach a turn or stop. Leaving it in gear results in undesirable engine braking, wasting your momentum. However, I don't know if selecting neutral is wise with a regular AT.

With CVT's, I understand there is a selection where you can get engine braking when desired, such as in the mountains.

CivicWagonRUS

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by adamrich33 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

You tell me... I think alot of you guys like to fudge the numbers or something i drive this thing like a granny and get 32mpg. my 91 teg got that. not much of a improvement on mileage after ater 17 years on honda's behalf. not to mention the teg had more power. the fit is a slow terd</TD></TR></TABLE>

Why the hell would we make up fuel economy figures? Bragging rights? This isn't HP figures, it's simply a measure of how carefully you can drive a car, and even then the conditions in which you drive the car will have a great impact. If you're so disappointed with the car, sell it and get the hell off of this forum.

stf

fuel economy... hum? yes, that was the reason to get the fit .i bought the sport and just can't help myself from down shifting at every occasion.it's just too much fun.i'm still on my 1st tank of gas but wonder if high grade is not a choice for go=cart style driving .

BudgetFitting

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by stf &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> but wonder if high grade is not a choice for go=cart style driving .</TD></TR></TABLE>

Driving style does not require a certain octane rating, it is solely based on the engineering of the engine and how it is tuned from the manufacturer.

stf

so... why do we have that fancy fuel

eL

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by stf &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">so... why do we have that fancy fuel</TD></TR></TABLE>

The Fit's engine is tuned for 87 octane. There is no need to go any higher, unless of course you like paying more for fuel.

That "fancy" fuel is for cars that have higher compression engines.

stf

i got those 15 inch wheels and find them to look kinda small... i checked out the pics of those other fit and "wow" some of them are really dressy.do 16 or ever 17's really mess up the mpg?
do they make 14 inch shpinners?(teehee teehee)

BudgetFitting

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by stf &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i got those 15 inch wheels and find them to look kinda small... i checked out the pics of those other fit and "wow" some of them are really dressy.do 16 or ever 17's really mess up the mpg?
do they make 14 inch shpinners?(teehee teehee)</TD></TR></TABLE>

Heavier rims take more energy to get moving, but stay in motion easier.

As a rule of thumb though, you want the lightest rim possible. Every pound you take off rotational weight, equals three pounds of stationary weight. Less weight means better gas milage. Usually bigger rims weigh more, unless you shell out some major dough for some expensive and light 17" (like Volk os SSR Comps).

Personally I think 17" rims on a Fit look like ***. I would not go bigger than 16".

Many people here run a slightly wider tire on 15" rims with their Fit. The 205-50-r15 will be wider, but will also be slightly shorter/thinner than the stock 195-55-r15. In theory, a shorter tire will make the speedometer slightly off, and slightly lower the MPH of any given shift point (the opposite effect is had with larger tires). So, if the MPH is slightly lower for any given rpm that means that a lightly higher RPM will be needed to sustain any given speed. This would mean that going 65 MPH on the freeway will take a little more RPMS, and MPG depends a lot on the RPM of the engine; thus the shorter tire should lightly lower MPG. I would like to see of this is actually noticeable for those with these tires.

So in sum, in the goal of getting good MPG with different rims; Get some light 16" and get tires that will match the stock ratio.

dbrd

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BudgetFitting &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Many people here run a slightly wider tire on 15" rims with their Fit. The 205-50-r15 will be wider, but will also be slightly shorter/thinner than the stock 195-55-r15. In theory, a shorter tire will make the speedometer slightly off, and slightly lower the MPH of any given shift point (the opposite effect is had with larger tires). So, if the MPH is slightly lower for any given rpm that means that a lightly higher RPM will be needed to sustain any given speed. This would mean that going 65 MPH on the freeway will take a little more RPMS, and MPG depends a lot on the RPM of the engine; thus the shorter tire should lightly lower MPG. I would like to see of this is actually noticeable for those with these tires.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

To summarize, a taller tire with a greater circumference will in effect increase the gear ratio - you go farther with each revolution of the engine and wheels. You should see a corresponding increase in true fuel mileage. However, there will be a corresponding decrease in the miles indicated by the odometer, so your calculated mileage will actually be understated. You would have to know the difference and correct for it. The speed indicated would be understated also.

Odometers/speedometers can be calibrated. I am not sure how it is done nowadays, or if it can be done on the Fit. I used to live around the corner from a shop that did this for the Highway Patrol cars. They had to have the speedometers calibrated periodically in order to certify their radar for legal reasons.

So those getting bad mileage should reveal if they are running stock tires and wheels. I think tire wear would have the opposite effect.