I purchased two honda fits, one a sport, and both cars have automatic trans. Presently with one passenger, my wife, we are getting 42-43 MHG at outside temperatures of 30 degrees. I am 6'5" amd weigh around 250 and the car is east to get into with plenty of leg room. The car handles great, has plenty of power and with the slightest indication of slowdown, the automatic trans kicks down a gear with no hesitation. There are no rattles or vibrations , but I dont drive above 65 MPH. The seats fold down or up with ease and can be moved in seconds. The upper release on the seats eliminates the need to reach under the seat to move it, although that can also be done. The dash is attractive and all controls are easy to reach and understand. Plenty of headroom, when in the car, and when getting into the car. My wife especially likes the fact that the front seat can fold down, and my wife can sit in the back seat, just like in her lazyboy at home. I traded in a honda odyssee for a fit, and I like the fit better. I am totally satisfied with this car , including the engineering, the trans, the motor, the space, and the ease of having over 4 different combinations of seat movement for storage and transportation of different items. Great car!!!
hmmmm...for example, if you're on a flat surface driving at 40mph in 5th gear at 1800rpm or 4th gear at 2300rpm, which would give you the better mpg? I'd say 5th gear at 1800rpm would give better mpg, but 4th at 2300rpm more power/torque.
On flat ground that would be true. On those long upgrades where a lot of throttle is required to maintain that 1800rpm, I believe a downshift would yield the better mileage.
Everything you said sounds great, except for the part about never going above 65mph. 70-75mph is the highway norm here, and on road trips in states with a 70mph speed limit, it's more like 75-80mph, so I'm more interested in how the Fit handles those speeds on a regular basis in terms of noise, MPG, etc.
I think you're not quite "getting" the concept of gearing and how it relates to torque curves. If an engine is turning at too few RPM's to develop sufficient torque, adding more fuel is not going to accomplish anything positive. That is to say, it's not about getting better fuel efficiency, it's about getting the job done, period...in this case, getting up the hill. You downshift to place the engine in a more powerful RPM range. Power=energy usage.
Exactly. And getting the best mpg is done by only using enough power to get the job done. If the engine has enough torque to go up the hill in 5th at 2000rpm, then dropping it to 4th and going 2500rpm will result in worse mpg. On the other hand, if the car's engine isn't powerful enough to maintain 2000rpm going up the hill in 5th, saving mpg doesn't matter because the car will stall out, so for best mpg you're trying to be in the highest gear possible without stalling out. This includes up-shifting as fast as possible.
We got our Fit last weekend, and so far very happy with it.
Once a mechanic told me to put 93 octane gas in my '95 Saturn to eliminate knocking, and added that I will have fewer problems with the engine in the long run if I consistently used 93 octane. He was right, I had no knocking since then and it has been a problem free car at 160k until we sold it last weekend.
I wonder if using 93 on the Fit will bring in better milage, more power and longetivity to the engine.
I wonder if using 93 on the Fit will bring in better milage, more power and longetivity to the engine.
The gain from using higher octane than you need will go to the oil companies, not you.
Engineers spent an enormous amount of time designing an engine to run on a specific grade of gasoline -- trust them! If by some slim chance, your Fit develops an engine knock, have that problem fixed instead of increasing octane.
Spending $.20/gallon more is wasteful and will not provide longer life.
I hope the person that bought your Saturn knows that they will have to use 93 octane now -- if they put regular in the tank, it'll probably cough up engine parts.
I think you're not quite "getting" the concept of gearing and how it relates to torque curves. If an engine is turning at too few RPM's to develop sufficient torque, adding more fuel is not going to accomplish anything positive.
[riposte] I agree completely. Re read my post!Possibly when you clicked on the REPLY button you meant to click on the other guys. You and I seem to be on the same page. :shades:
This is what I said! On flat ground that would be true. On those long upgrades where a lot of throttle is required to maintain that 1800rpm, I believe a downshift would yield the better mileage.
Same reason an auto would downshift.
When it becomes necessary to "PUSH" the throttle hard to attempt maintaining speed, the engine is not in a happy torque curve and not up to the task at hand. A down shift will put the engine in a better position to do the job. Most of the time the throttle can be lightened, resulting in better fuel economy.
Attempting to pump more fuel into an overloaded engine will NOT yield better mileage. Pumping less fuel into an engine running at the correct RPM for the task will!
Exactly. And getting the best mpg is done by only using enough power to get the job done.
And the enough/correct power to get the job done will not necessarily be in the highest gear on the stick.
If the engine has enough torque to go up the hill in 5th at 2000rpm, then dropping it to 4th and going 2500rpm will result in worse mpg.
Not if you are having to use excessive throttle to force it up that hill. If you do, the engine rpm/torque was not in a good place.
.. On the other hand, if the car's engine isn't powerful enough to maintain 2000rpm going up the hill in 5th, saving mpg doesn't matter because the car will stall out,..
Ahhh... now we are getting together. Sort of! The engine won't necessarily stall out! It may simply maintain that rpm or drop some before reaching the top, even though the throttle was on the floor. Downshifting and using less throttle will yield better mileage for that task as well as putting a lot less strain on the engine itself!
...so for best mpg you're trying to be in the highest gear possible without stalling out...
Agreed, as long as the engine is producing enough torque to not require excessive throttle to do the task.
Keep the engine in a happy place and it will last a long time and yield the best mileage. I've seen too many engines ruined and heard too many complaints of poor fuel mileage from those that refused to believe that keeping the engine happy will help to keep you happy.
Flat or hill...it doesn't make a difference. A load on a car is a load on a car. Going up hill creates additional load like putting three 300lb guys in the car with you. I'm not sure what you mean by "excessive throttle to force it up that hill. If you do, the engine rpm/torque was not in a good place." Anytime you're driving you're forcing the car forward...that's physics. And what is the difference between excessive throttle and just plain throttle? And when is the engine in a good and happy place?
Granted that if you're trying to drive in 5th gear at 10mph with the gas pedal to the floor, then you're doing something wrong. Or if you're in too high of a gear and the car is jerking and about to stall. But I'm talking about for normal driving, getting into a higher gear will result in better mpg. Now if you're in 5th gear and the RPMs are dropping to the normal idle RPM range for whatever reason, then you better shift...that's just common sense.
I have another question...what's better on mpg on the long downhills...leaving the car in 3rd gear for example at 3000rpms for engine braking, or putting the car in neutral and letting it coast and just tapping your brakes?
Flat or hill...it doesn't make a difference. A load on a car is a load on a car.
OK...Try running your car at a steady throttle on flat ground. When you get to a grade, don't change a thing.I believe you will find that the car begins to loose speed. Flat or a hill does make a difference!
Going up hill creates additional load like putting three 300lb guys in the car with you.
Yes it does make a difference!
I'm not sure what you mean by "excessive throttle to force it up that hill. If you do, the engine rpm/torque was not in a good place."
Pressing the throttle to or near the floor to ask the car to try keeping the same speed. That "Heavy" throttle position burns extra fuel that would not be used if car was in proper gear to allow the engine to operate in the correct RPM range for the task at hand.
Anytime you're driving you're forcing the car forward...that's physics.
True and if the engine is at the proper RPM for the load all runs smoothly. Introduce a long grade or your 3 overweight friends and more torque through engine rpm is required for that task. An engine that is beginning to stress from the tranny being in the wrong gear, for whatever the load, may react to more and more (excessive)throttle. However at a cost of more fuel burned. You said that yourself. "Now if you're in 5th gear and the RPMs are dropping to the normal idle RPM range for whatever reason, then you better shift...that's just common sense."
You are right, just not going far enough with the process. The engine doesn't have to be jerking and trying to stall for common sense to dictate downshifting. With a few exceptions, anytime a little more throttle doesn't result in a rise in speed/rpm it is a good time to think about downshifting. That is what the ATs do. Better for economy and better on the engine.
Granted that if you're trying to drive in 5th gear at 10mph with the gas pedal to the floor, then you're doing something wrong.
We agree again! If you are driving in any gear with the throttle to or near the floor and are simply trying to maintain a speed, you are doing something wrong. Time to down shift until conditions dictate upshifting. The exceptions to that are if trying to accelerate quickly or run at top speed. Again you are burning more fuel!
...what's better on mpg on the long downhills...leaving the car in 3rd gear for example at 3000rpms for engine braking, or putting the car in neutral and letting it coast and just tapping your brakes?
Good question! In our studies we haven't dealt with that. Gut feel is that if it is left in say 3rd gear and that seems to satisfy the desired speed, then little fuel is being used. However, if it becomes apparent that 3rd is a bit low and some throttle is occasionally necessary, fuel will be burned. Leaving the car in nutral and idling will burn very little fuel considering the distance you travel.
Personally I will usually lock out OD and use the brakes when necessary. If the brakes begin to feel like they are fading, a lower gear gets found real fast!
I guess someone else can try to help to explain to him the physics better than me because I'm tired of trying just to have my posts quoted out of context. Bottom line is that you downshift (or the automatics downshift) for power and upshift for fuel economy. And yes I'm sure something in my short post will be pulled out and bolded out of context! But if you're driving up hill all the time, listen to someone else
Oh the dilemma of the true curve of the physics equation.
In terms of pure physics there IS an equation, which I dont know.
That being said...some of the differences discussed here on this topic are a question of auto vs manual.
There is local area with sharp incline. If you get going fast enough before the hill you dont need to downshift but if someone is lagging in the lane where you cant pass (or want to pass) one needs a lower gear.
If you were to compare MT vs AT I could probably do so only when the MT is in cruise or the AT is on paddles.
Used to be if I could get good speed going up a sharp 50 mph hill in cruise in my current beater (still waiting on my Fit), I wouldnt have to downshift ever with good rpms. But if someone was lagging or blocking passing lane I would have to downshift. Of course that uses gas.
IMO its simply a question of individual situations but to be fair, I think more accurate comparisons are in place (ie use of cruise in either vehicle.)
Now if you're in 5th gear and the RPMs are dropping to the normal idle RPM range for whatever reason, then you better shift...that's just common sense.
I have another question...what's better on mpg on the long downhills...leaving the car in 3rd gear for example at 3000rpms for engine braking, or putting the car in neutral and letting it coast and just tapping your brakes?
See now...thats what I am talking about.
My housemate just critized my assessment of cruise for getting best mileage. But thing is you arent supposed* to use it on hills and his thing was about going down the hill and not up. I dont disagree that cruise is bad for downhills. And I too wonder about tapping ones brakes vs downshifting.
I live on a hill and I know that I have to keep it in lower gear just to keep from wearing out my brakes, but I cant go down in first either.
guess someone else can try to help to explain to him the physics better than me because I'm tired of trying just to have my posts quoted out of context. Bottom line is that you downshift (or the automatics downshift) for power and upshift for fuel economy. And yes I'm sure something in my short post will be pulled out and bolded out of context! But if you're driving up hill all the time, listen to someone else
Not deliberately pulling out of context. Just trying to address your points, in the order that you made them, even when we agreed! Look again. Sorry you don't see that. You seem to be more interested in winning than reasoning!
If you wish to believe that a heavy throttle, while an engine is struggling to keep up, will get better mileage than one turning a few more rpm but within the torque curve for the task at hand, and requiring less throttle. Go for it!
My apology for upsetting you.
When you find that physic formula, Please post it.
The auto will downshift when necessary. The manual depends on the driver.
Here is what we found on cruise control: On reasonably flat roads, you can let it do its job. Your speed will be constant, throttle relatively steady, and about as good mileage as your car is capable of for the speed selected and so forth.
On hilly terrain the cruise reduces the throttle going downhill to maintain the desired speed. Going uphill it will strive to keep the car to selected speed which can burn extra fuel.
You can sort of have the best of both worlds (and experiment some) by leaving the cruise on and gently over riding it with the throttle on down hill. You may wish to build an extra 10 MPH or so while gravity is helping. Keep your foot steady on the throttle and eventually, on the uphill grade, the cruise will pull the pedal from under your foot toward the floor. If you had not allowed a bit of extra speed on the down hill the cruise would have "Pulled" the pedal away sooner.
It is kind of interesting to do and to find ways of doing it better. Reason for leaving the cruise on was to let you get a feel of what is happening. And the cruise would still be ready for the flats.
Best mileage is acquired by turning off the cruise, building speed down hill and actually loosing some going up the next. A steady foot will accomplish that. Just keep an eye out behind you.
Never knew I could learn about physics and driving up and down hills.....
first - most manufacturers (owner's manual) will tell you if you are in a hilly area NOT to use cruise control. You use cruise control for better gas mileage (maintaining a constant speed and the lowest rpm) and reduce driver fatigue (shake your legs out on a long drive).
Second - If you are going downhill, please do not shift into neutral. yes you will get phenomenal gas mileage but remember you have to shift back into gear doing 55 mph. Also what happens if a deer crosses the road (or some other emergency), you have only one thing you can do and that is brake. there are times when you need to actually speed up to avoid a mishap.
I'm eager to read about the Fit mpg since I will likely look fro anew car in the next 6 months. My 2000 Intrigue (126k miles) gets 25-28 mpg (depends on how much in town driving I do) on my daily 43.6 miles (EW) commute. Would love to purchase something that gets in the mid 30s.
No need for anyone apologizing for stating their opinions, but I never said that I “believe that a heavy throttle, while an engine is struggling to keep up, will get better mileage” so I just don’t like to be misquoted. And it’s not necessary to copy/paste/bold my post in your post when everyone can read the original. I not trying to “win” anything either. I do know that I normally get 25-26 highway mpg on my Ford Freestyle while driving 70-75mph using my driving technique which is very simple I use the cruise control as much as possible and keep the revs low, so no quick starts after every red light
I've made several trips driving over the Appalachian Mountains on road trips between Virginia and Ohio and kept the cruise on at about 70mph. The revs go up on the uphill and downhill but that’s okay. If you’re driving 70mph on cruise and come to a hill, sure you can turn the cruise off and go up the hill at 60mph to save gas. Or you could just reset the cruise to 60mph on the uphills to save gas. It’s not the use of the cruise that’s affecting mpg but the speed. All that cruise does is make it easier to maintain a constant speed. Or you could just reset the cruise to 60mph on flat ground to save even more gas and reduce speed to 50mph to save gas on the hills. Or if you have more passengers in the car, which increases the load on a car in the same way as going uphill does, then by this logic you shouldn’t use cruise control either, or you should reduce your speed. What about a strong headwind? Should the drive reduce their speed in a strong headwind to save gas? And you could go on and on and on.
Bottom line is that going uphill, driving on flat ground against a strong headwind, towing something, putting a lot of weight in or on top of a car all will reduce your mpg. But my goal isn’t to have the exact same mpg uphill, downhill, flat, hilly, windy, with/without heavy cargo, etc. My goal is just do get the best mpg for my driving. I’m not saying this will work for every vehicle out there, but I’m not willing to drive 55mph to get the best possible mpg. For me I want to get the best mpg while driving 70-75mph, so this is what I do. If mpg is the most crucial thing, then keep the car at 55-60mph on the highway, up shift as quick as possible in a manual, or in an automatic don’t put too much pressure on the gas pedal to get the automatic to upshift faster.
And I won't make anymore posts to this forum on this subject, so I'll give the last word (of course in a bold email) to someone else :P
I have a base manual (one of the top 10 high mileage cars in the US) and I regularly coast down a 7 percent grade for 6 miles. Engine is at idle RPM all the way down. No problem shifting into 5th at 55 mph, either.
I think the main point for not driving in neutral is safety and brakes. It seems like going 6 miles on a 7% grade in neutral, you'd have to pump the brakes quite a lot to keep your speed in a check. Plus when you're engine braking I don't think you're using any more gas than in idle (at least not much). Even though the RPMs may be at 3000 versus 1000 in idle, then amount of gas needed to keep the engine at 3000rpm on the down hill is probably the same as to keep the engine at 1000 because the power to turn the engine is coming mostly from the momentum, not from the gas firing in the cylinders. It's the same as if you kept the car in gear but turned off the engine. The engine RPMs could go at 3000 RPM on the entire 6 mile stretch of 7% grade with zero gas being used (don't try this one at home!).
Don't forget though that the peak 210 HP on your Odyssey is at 5200 rpm? Do you actually ever rev the engine that high?
You are most likely using only a fraction of your car's maximum horsepower in day-to-day driving, so I wouldn't worry about 5 HP. No reason or real advantage to use premium fuel.
I gotta agree with the other two on the long down hill grades. Keep it in a gear that will approximate the speed you wish to travel. It is easier on the brakes, you are ready for any emergency acceleration, and will probably burn little if any more fuel than letting the engine idle.
On a steep down grade our Pilot will shift down to 4th the first time the brakes are used or when starting from a stop on a steep down grade. It stays there until the bottom has been reached, then shift into 5th. Suspect it senses the travel speed is faster than the throttle input calls for. Or maybe it has a "Tilt" box somewhere that senses the angle. :confuse:
As hungarian83 pointed out that extra 5 HP is at high RPM. An extra 20 cents per gallon is kind of a steep price to pay unless you regularly "Wring er out" on a regular basis.
Some have posted here that they actually got worse mileage with 93 octane. A while back I picked up a propaganda pamphlet at a shell station. It stated that if your car is designed to burn regular, nothing would be accomplished by burning premium. :confuse:
"Some have posted here that they actually got worse mileage with 93 octane."
In my first car, a 1987 Accord with very high miles, I used higher octane fuel to combat occasional spark knock. Although it stopped the noise, my average fuel economy went down the equivalent of about 2 mpg in normal driving and I could feel a drop in performance.
I see no benefit to using high octane fuel in the Fit (either mileage or performance-wise) since it will probably decrease both.
I guess there would be no harm to experiment in any car. Maybe on my next long weekend trip on the highway I'll drive on cruise at 70mph for a couple of hundred miles on 87 and then on 93 and see if there's a difference, at least on flat land. The only thing is that I don't want to use 93 and screw up the car's computer, since I've always used 87.
the higher the octane, the higher the temperature needed to ignite the fuel vapor. Higher octane is used in cars with higher compression ratios, like the Acura TSX, when using 87 would cause the vapor to ignite too soon.
That engine in the Odyssey was an early version. If I remember right, it was first offered in the Accord and required premium gas. (Someone correct if I am wrong) They have since added power and tuned it to run on regular. The Odyssey cannot be compared to a 2007 Fit. And 5 hp is not a significant differnce (2.4%) between premium and regular.
Ask yourself this, why should i put premium gasoline (more expensive by at least $0.20/gallon) in a vehicle that is design to maximize fuel economy and lower my gas bill?
IF you want to experiment and post your results, I'm sure others (including myself) would be interested.
If you are referring to the first V6 Accord which debuted in 1995 (during the 5th generation cycle), then I believe you are incorrect. That Accord used a 2.7L C-series (C27) engine. That is a relatively old engine design which dates back to the first Acura Legend. The individual who posted here has a 2001 (2nd generation) Odyssey which has a J-series engine. It has nothing to do with the older Accord V6.
Even then, the Accord V6 might have needed premium... but the Fit doesn't!
re-reading my post i wasn't clear. I meant the first application of the V6 in the Odyssey was derived from the one used in the Accord at the time. It required premium fuel to maximize performance.
I do agree no need for premium or even 89 octane in the Fit.
It is nice to see people are getting good gas mileage with these vehicles. I like the Versa with the CVT but the gas mileage being reported is discouraging.
If the Versa gets 30mpg and the Fit 35mgg, then if you drive 15,000 on both cars and spend $2.50 for gas, then you'll spend $178.57 more per year for gas with the Versa, or about $15/month. So I guess you have to decide if the other features on the Versa are worth an extra $15/month. For me, getting the cruise control without having to get the side skirts, having an armrest, and having softer materials in the interior are worth the $15/month extra. Plus I think with the CVT you can really get better MPG then a lot of people are getting, especially if you do a lot of highway driving, but if you're doing mostly non-highway driving with lots of starts and stops, the CVT will really burn the gas if you're heavy on the pedal.
Some of the Versa features are really nice and worth the extra cost. However that rear seat that doesn't go Flat would be hard for me to live with in a hatchback/station wagon design. Fit is a much more versatile use of space.
People buy wagons for that "bulky cargo" handling feature. What in the world was Nissan thinking about to take a real nice car and do that back seat thing? :sick:
Maybe they'll get the shelf over hear to make it flat like they have in Japan. For me it doesn't matter, because I have anough car for carrying big stuff. I'm going to use the Versa for the weekend road trips with a car seat in the back and luggage behind the rear seat. If the Versa is your only car, then your right in that the lack of a flat cargo area is a minus, but for me, the Versa is my commuter car and for a trip to Lowes I'll drive my Freestyle. I like the hatchback design because you're not wasting space with the trunk, so you end up with a shorter car with more luggage space. That being said, I'm surprised too that the Versa seats can't at least flip forward?
Just saw this over at consumerreports.org. It appears that they have completed the fuel testing for the Fit (and the Versa) that will be included in the CR December issue. The Fit with AT got 32 mpg overall, according to Gabriel Shenhar of CR. The Versa, incidentally, got 28 mpg overall.
By the way, about the Versa's rear seat the way it is, Nissan did say that they wanted to give the Versa a full-sized seat, front and back, and to do that, they had to have the rear seat that way. To make it flat, the Versa would not get that kind of comfy rear seat. There were enough complaints about the non-flat cargo area, though, so that in Japan Nissan gave the Versa's little brother, the NOTE, a flat cargo floor. But you don't get a full-size rear seat in the NOTE.
Using 9.5 gal on a 10.3 gal tank is cutting it pretty close. What did the gas gauge look like and was there a low fuel light indicator? And do you a manual or auto?
Hi. I have had my Fit for almost 2 months now and I love it, but I am very concerned about the MPGs I'm getting. I live in Chicago and do almost 100% city driving. I drive carefully, and I'm very light on the pedal. Of course, most of my travel is very short distances and stop and go. I've filled up the tank about 4 times already and my average MPG has been about 20! This seems terrible to me and it seems to keep going down. I'm calculating it correctly, by dividing the amount of gas pumped in by the number of miles driven since last fill up. My first fill up gave me 21.31 MPG, the second 20.44, and the third 18.94.
Should I be worried? Is something wrong? I've seen other people posting that they are getting about 30MPG with 100% city driving. Please help. Thanks.
I don't think you can really compare to others. I'm sure Chicago has pretty bad city traffic. You really need to start logging how long the car is sitting at idle in that kind of traffic. Take it on a long highway trip if your really concerned.
Lots of driving on a cold engine, and mostly stop and go driving will heavily affect the mileage on your car.
What I would suggest is the next time you have the opportunity to go on a longer highway trip, take your car and try to put at least 200 miles of just highway driving. Then fill up. It won't be the most accurate, since it's better to do this on a closer to empty tank, but at least it will give you a rough estimate. Hopefully the number will be above 30.
Also, my interpretation of city driving (since I don't live in an extremely congested area) is different than if I was constantly driving in the downtown of a big city...particularly Chicago.
As others have correctly pointed out, the definition of a "city" driving varies from a driver to a driver, a test to a test. For instance, the EPA city mode has the maximum speed of 56 MPH with the mean speed of 20 MPH. I am familiar with Chicago, and if you are truly in town there, you never attain either the high or mean of the EPA speed, which means that your mileage should be lower than what EPA says (usually is anyway). And many people think they are driving "city" when in reality they are driving "suburban," and there is a big difference between the two.
As a good sample, Consumer Reports gives three mileage numbers for each vehicle tested: City, Highway, and Overall. Their city mode is true city. Their current issue has the Fit, among others, tested. The Fit Automatic got 22 MPG in their city mode, with the manual getting 26 MPG. The highways numbers are 43 and 39 MPG, respectively.
Your numbers, while on the lower end, are within a reasonable range of CR's numbers for the automatic Fit (you did not tell us which transmission your Fit has).
I used to live in Japan near Tokyo. In its extremely congested city streets, even a 1.3 liter Fit (smaller than the US-spec Fit and is more economical) can easily get a mileage like 18~19 MPG. It is not unusual for a car with 2.5 liter displacement there getting 12 MPG or less driving in Tokyo.
Just as others have suggested, I would take your Fit out for an extended highway driving. If your mileage is still poor after that, then I would be concerned and recommend that you take your Fit to your dealership for a checkup. Let us know how that goes.
Yeah, I should have characterized my 300+ miles on 9.5 gallons with my Sport MT as suburban instead of city. I only meant that I hadn't done anyway freeway driving during that span. With my second shift at work, I'm never stuck in any kind of rush hour traffic... I can go stretches of at least a mile or two between red lights (or much more if I hit it lucky) so that definately would make a difference. I'll be making a long trip over the Thanksgiving holiday and looking forward to see what kind of mileage I get then.
I was going to say that I hope r2g finds out what is causing those poor results, but I guess it might be normal given the conditions.
Thanks to all for the feedback. I do have the Sport Automatic, so it looks like I'm on the low end of CR rating for the Fit. I don't have any longer road trips planned in the near future, but the Fit will surely be used for one of those when the time comes. My wife has a 2001 Civic -- she's never checked what her MPG is, so I'm going to see what she's getting driving in the same conditions. Yeah, my commute is TRUE BIG CITY driving -- on most days I drive the car for a total of 5 - 10 miles total. My one-way commute to work is about 3.5 miles, which takes anywhere between 15 - 30 minutes, so my "average" speed is very low. Makes me wonder what kind of MPG the big gas guzzlers are getting in the city. I promise to update if I get more Highway driving done -- I'm keeping good records.
my driving is 75% highway and 25% suburban, I filled up at the same gas station and the same pump so my figures should be very accurate, I have a 5 speed manual Sport Fit, A/C wasn't used
1st tank 43.1 mpg (I really don't count this since it was filled by the dealer, it seems a little high)
2nd tank 38.5 mpg
3rd tank 37.5 mpg (the weather is starting to get cold)
Finally got my Fit Sport, AT. First 6 tanks averaged 34.92 on 87 octane, mixed rural,hiway, very little real "city" driving. Drove nice, rarely exceeding 3500RPM, 60-60 on highway speed. Tank #7 was 10% ethanol blend.- Milage dropped to 30.9, which is right in the expected 10% reduction using 10% ethanol. I do fill up until I need 9 or more gallons, fill to same level always. have about 2400 miles on car between 10/10 and 11-6. Oil is at 80%. Hope milage improves. Car is fantastic to drive. Handles well, has as much power as you ever need. headlights ok. The dims literally "turn off" at a certain distance. I had some similar lights(That were from Europe) on a jeep a few years ago. I have no problem with them. My dealer checksheet showed the did the ILP prior to delivery. Do not know if they actually did or not though. Been mostly using wal-Mart gas. I will go to synthetic oil when I get a change. I will keep posting as miles go on the car Wulybugr- Southern Missouri
You say you are "...dividing the amount of gas pumped in by the number of miles driven since last fill up"
Ya know when I figure mileage, I take the Miles driven and Divide by the Gallons I just pumped. That will change your numbers I'm pretty sure. I think that's the opposite of what you are doing.
Sorry if I didn't make it clear in the last post, but the way I calculate MPG is the same way you describe.
I should also add, that I haven't used the AC while driving and my tire pressure was fine. Also, I only have about 550 miles on the car. I think I might be stuck with the low MPG as long as my driving is circumscribed to Urban Chicago. Will post when and if things change.
Yes, Urban Chicago would probably keep your Fit's mileage lower than what other people may be getting, but you must not forget that you could be getting an even worse mileage in a different car. In your kind of setting, the only car that truly thrives in fuel economy would be a hybrid such as the Prius because of the way the electric motor assist kicks in at the get-go and a low speed (not applicable to the Civic hybrid) and the engine shuts off at complete stops.
Comments
On flat ground that would be true. On those long upgrades where a lot of throttle is required to maintain that 1800rpm, I believe a downshift would yield the better mileage.
Same reason an auto would downshift.
Kip
True, because they recognize that at a certain point more power will get the job done with less throttle, resulting in better MPG.
Kip
I think you're not quite "getting" the concept of gearing and how it relates to torque curves. If an engine is turning at too few RPM's to develop sufficient torque, adding more fuel is not going to accomplish anything positive. That is to say, it's not about getting better fuel efficiency, it's about getting the job done, period...in this case, getting up the hill. You downshift to place the engine in a more powerful RPM range. Power=energy usage.
We got our Fit last weekend, and so far very happy with it.
Once a mechanic told me to put 93 octane gas in my '95 Saturn to eliminate knocking, and added that I will have fewer problems with the engine in the long run if I consistently used 93 octane. He was right, I had no knocking since then and it has been a problem free car at 160k until we sold it last weekend.
I wonder if using 93 on the Fit will bring in better milage, more power and longetivity to the engine.
Thanks
The gain from using higher octane than you need will go to the oil companies, not you.
Engineers spent an enormous amount of time designing an engine to run on a specific grade of gasoline -- trust them! If by some slim chance, your Fit develops an engine knock, have that problem fixed instead of increasing octane.
Spending $.20/gallon more is wasteful and will not provide longer life.
I hope the person that bought your Saturn knows that they will have to use 93 octane now -- if they put regular in the tank, it'll probably cough up engine parts.
[riposte] I agree completely. Re read my post!Possibly when you clicked on the REPLY button you meant to click on the other guys. You and I seem to be on the same page. :shades:
This is what I said! On flat ground that would be true. On those long upgrades where a lot of throttle is required to maintain that 1800rpm, I believe a downshift would yield the better mileage.
Same reason an auto would downshift.
When it becomes necessary to "PUSH" the throttle hard to attempt maintaining speed, the engine is not in a happy torque curve and not up to the task at hand. A down shift will put the engine in a better position to do the job. Most of the time the throttle can be lightened, resulting in better fuel economy.
Attempting to pump more fuel into an overloaded engine will NOT yield better mileage. Pumping less fuel into an engine running at the correct RPM for the task will!
Kip
And the enough/correct power to get the job done will not necessarily be in the highest gear on the stick.
If the engine has enough torque to go up the hill in 5th at 2000rpm, then dropping it to 4th and going 2500rpm will result in worse mpg.
Not if you are having to use excessive throttle to force it up that hill. If you do, the engine rpm/torque was not in a good place.
.. On the other hand, if the car's engine isn't powerful enough to maintain 2000rpm going up the hill in 5th, saving mpg doesn't matter because the car will stall out,..
Ahhh... now we are getting together. Sort of! The engine won't necessarily stall out! It may simply maintain that rpm or drop some before reaching the top, even though the throttle was on the floor. Downshifting and using less throttle will yield better mileage for that task as well as putting a lot less strain on the engine itself!
...so for best mpg you're trying to be in the highest gear possible without stalling out...
Agreed, as long as the engine is producing enough torque to not require excessive throttle to do the task.
Keep the engine in a happy place and it will last a long time and yield the best mileage. I've seen too many engines ruined and heard too many complaints of poor fuel mileage from those that refused to believe that keeping the engine happy will help to keep you happy.
Kip
Granted that if you're trying to drive in 5th gear at 10mph with the gas pedal to the floor, then you're doing something wrong. Or if you're in too high of a gear and the car is jerking and about to stall. But I'm talking about for normal driving, getting into a higher gear will result in better mpg. Now if you're in 5th gear and the RPMs are dropping to the normal idle RPM range for whatever reason, then you better shift...that's just common sense.
I have another question...what's better on mpg on the long downhills...leaving the car in 3rd gear for example at 3000rpms for engine braking, or putting the car in neutral and letting it coast and just tapping your brakes?
OK...Try running your car at a steady throttle on flat ground. When you get to a grade, don't change a thing.I believe you will find that the car begins to loose speed.
Flat or a hill does make a difference!
Going up hill creates additional load like putting three 300lb guys in the car with you.
Yes it does make a difference!
I'm not sure what you mean by "excessive throttle to force it up that hill. If you do, the engine rpm/torque was not in a good place."
Pressing the throttle to or near the floor to ask the car to try keeping the same speed. That "Heavy" throttle position burns extra fuel that would not be used if car was in proper gear to allow the engine to operate in the correct RPM range for the task at hand.
Anytime you're driving you're forcing the car forward...that's physics.
True and if the engine is at the proper RPM for the load all runs smoothly. Introduce a long grade or your 3 overweight friends and more torque through engine rpm is required for that task. An engine that is beginning to stress from the tranny being in the wrong gear, for whatever the load, may react to more and more (excessive)throttle. However at a cost of more fuel burned. You said that yourself. "Now if you're in 5th gear and the RPMs are dropping to the normal idle RPM range for whatever reason, then you better shift...that's just common sense."
You are right, just not going far enough with the process. The engine doesn't have to be jerking and trying to stall for common sense to dictate downshifting. With a few exceptions, anytime a little more throttle doesn't result in a rise in speed/rpm it is a good time to think about downshifting. That is what the ATs do. Better for economy and better on the engine.
Granted that if you're trying to drive in 5th gear at 10mph with the gas pedal to the floor, then you're doing something wrong.
We agree again! If you are driving in any gear with the throttle to or near the floor and are simply trying to maintain a speed, you are doing something wrong. Time to down shift until conditions dictate upshifting. The exceptions to that are if trying to accelerate quickly or run at top speed. Again you are burning more fuel!
...what's better on mpg on the long downhills...leaving the car in 3rd gear for example at 3000rpms for engine braking, or putting the car in neutral and letting it coast and just tapping your brakes?
Good question! In our studies we haven't dealt with that. Gut feel is that if it is left in say 3rd gear and that seems to satisfy the desired speed, then little fuel is being used. However, if it becomes apparent that 3rd is a bit low and some throttle is occasionally necessary, fuel will be burned. Leaving the car in nutral and idling will burn very little fuel considering the distance you travel.
Personally I will usually lock out OD and use the brakes when necessary. If the brakes begin to feel like they are fading, a lower gear gets found real fast!
I hope this helps.
Kip
Oh the dilemma of the true curve of the physics equation.
In terms of pure physics there IS an equation, which I dont know.
That being said...some of the differences discussed here on this topic are a question of auto vs manual.
There is local area with sharp incline. If you get going fast enough before the hill you dont need to downshift but if someone is lagging in the lane where you cant pass (or want to pass) one needs a lower gear.
If you were to compare MT vs AT I could probably do so only when the MT is in cruise or the AT is on paddles.
Used to be if I could get good speed going up a sharp 50 mph hill in cruise in my current beater (still waiting on my Fit), I wouldnt have to downshift ever with good rpms. But if someone was lagging or blocking passing lane I would have to downshift. Of course that uses gas.
IMO its simply a question of individual situations but to be fair, I think more accurate comparisons are in place (ie use of cruise in either vehicle.)
I have another question...what's better on mpg on the long downhills...leaving the car in 3rd gear for example at 3000rpms for engine braking, or putting the car in neutral and letting it coast and just tapping your brakes?
See now...thats what I am talking about.
My housemate just critized my assessment of cruise for getting best mileage. But thing is you arent supposed* to use it on hills and his thing was about going down the hill and not up. I dont disagree that cruise is bad for downhills. And I too wonder about tapping ones brakes vs downshifting.
I live on a hill and I know that I have to keep it in lower gear just to keep from wearing out my brakes, but I cant go down in first either.
Not deliberately pulling out of context. Just trying to address your points, in the order that you made them, even when we agreed! Look again. Sorry you don't see that. You seem to be more interested in winning than reasoning!
If you wish to believe that a heavy throttle, while an engine is struggling to keep up, will get better mileage than one turning a few more rpm but within the torque curve for the task at hand, and requiring less throttle. Go for it!
My apology for upsetting you.
When you find that physic formula, Please post it.
Thanks,
Kip
Here is what we found on cruise control:
On reasonably flat roads, you can let it do its job. Your speed will be constant, throttle relatively steady, and about as good mileage as your car is capable of for the speed selected and so forth.
On hilly terrain the cruise reduces the throttle going downhill to maintain the desired speed. Going uphill it will strive to keep the car to selected speed which can burn extra fuel.
You can sort of have the best of both worlds (and experiment some) by leaving the cruise on and gently over riding it with the throttle on down hill. You may wish to build an extra 10 MPH or so while gravity is helping. Keep your foot steady on the throttle and eventually, on the uphill grade, the cruise will pull the pedal from under your foot toward the floor. If you had not allowed a bit of extra speed on the down hill the cruise would have "Pulled" the pedal away sooner.
It is kind of interesting to do and to find ways of doing it better. Reason for leaving the cruise on was to let you get a feel of what is happening. And the cruise would still be ready for the flats.
Best mileage is acquired by turning off the cruise, building speed down hill and actually loosing some going up the next. A steady foot will accomplish that. Just keep an eye out behind you.
Kip
Never knew I could learn about physics and driving up and down hills.....
first - most manufacturers (owner's manual) will tell you if you are in a hilly area NOT to use cruise control. You use cruise control for better gas mileage (maintaining a constant speed and the lowest rpm) and reduce driver fatigue (shake your legs out on a long drive).
Second - If you are going downhill, please do not shift into neutral. yes you will get phenomenal gas mileage but remember you have to shift back into gear doing 55 mph. Also what happens if a deer crosses the road (or some other emergency), you have only one thing you can do and that is brake. there are times when you need to actually speed up to avoid a mishap.
I'm eager to read about the Fit mpg since I will likely look fro anew car in the next 6 months. My 2000 Intrigue (126k miles) gets 25-28 mpg (depends on how much in town driving I do) on my daily 43.6 miles (EW) commute. Would love to purchase something that gets in the mid 30s.
I've made several trips driving over the Appalachian Mountains on road trips between Virginia and Ohio and kept the cruise on at about 70mph. The revs go up on the uphill and downhill but that’s okay. If you’re driving 70mph on cruise and come to a hill, sure you can turn the cruise off and go up the hill at 60mph to save gas. Or you could just reset the cruise to 60mph on the uphills to save gas. It’s not the use of the cruise that’s affecting mpg but the speed. All that cruise does is make it easier to maintain a constant speed. Or you could just reset the cruise to 60mph on flat ground to save even more gas and reduce speed to 50mph to save gas on the hills. Or if you have more passengers in the car, which increases the load on a car in the same way as going uphill does, then by this logic you shouldn’t use cruise control either, or you should reduce your speed. What about a strong headwind? Should the drive reduce their speed in a strong headwind to save gas? And you could go on and on and on.
Bottom line is that going uphill, driving on flat ground against a strong headwind, towing something, putting a lot of weight in or on top of a car all will reduce your mpg. But my goal isn’t to have the exact same mpg uphill, downhill, flat, hilly, windy, with/without heavy cargo, etc. My goal is just do get the best mpg for my driving. I’m not saying this will work for every vehicle out there, but I’m not willing to drive 55mph to get the best possible mpg. For me I want to get the best mpg while driving 70-75mph, so this is what I do. If mpg is the most crucial thing, then keep the car at 55-60mph on the highway, up shift as quick as possible in a manual, or in an automatic don’t put too much pressure on the gas pedal to get the automatic to upshift faster.
And I won't make anymore posts to this forum on this subject, so I'll give the last word (of course in a bold email) to someone else :P
Shneor
We also have a 01 Odyssey, and the specs say:
Horsepower @ rpm(SAE net): 210 @ 5200*
Torque (lb.-ft.@rpm): 229 @ 4300*
* With premium unleaded fuel (205 hp/217 lb.-ft. with regular unleaded fuel).
It looks like with that engine, 93 brings in a few ponies extra. How come this is not the case for Fit?
Thanks
You are most likely using only a fraction of your car's maximum horsepower in day-to-day driving, so I wouldn't worry about 5 HP. No reason or real advantage to use premium fuel.
On a steep down grade our Pilot will shift down to 4th the first time the brakes are used or when starting from a stop on a steep down grade. It stays there until the bottom has been reached, then shift into 5th. Suspect it senses the travel speed is faster than the throttle input calls for. Or maybe it has a "Tilt" box somewhere that senses the angle. :confuse:
Kip
Some have posted here that they actually got worse mileage with 93 octane. A while back I picked up a propaganda pamphlet at a shell station. It stated that if your car is designed to burn regular, nothing would be accomplished by burning premium. :confuse:
Kip
In my first car, a 1987 Accord with very high miles, I used higher octane fuel to combat occasional spark knock. Although it stopped the noise, my average fuel economy went down the equivalent of about 2 mpg in normal driving and I could feel a drop in performance.
I see no benefit to using high octane fuel in the Fit (either mileage or performance-wise) since it will probably decrease both.
Otherwise they're the same gas. Just use 87.
Ask yourself this, why should i put premium gasoline (more expensive by at least $0.20/gallon) in a vehicle that is design to maximize fuel economy and lower my gas bill?
IF you want to experiment and post your results, I'm sure others (including myself) would be interested.
That Accord used a 2.7L C-series (C27) engine. That is a relatively old engine design which dates back to the first Acura Legend. The individual who posted here has a 2001 (2nd generation) Odyssey which has a J-series engine. It has nothing to do with the older Accord V6.
Even then, the Accord V6 might have needed premium... but the Fit doesn't!
I do agree no need for premium or even 89 octane in the Fit.
It is nice to see people are getting good gas mileage with these vehicles. I like the Versa with the CVT but the gas mileage being reported is discouraging.
People buy wagons for that "bulky cargo" handling feature.
What in the world was Nissan thinking about to take a real nice car and do that back seat thing? :sick:
By the way, about the Versa's rear seat the way it is, Nissan did say that they wanted to give the Versa a full-sized seat, front and back, and to do that, they had to have the rear seat that way. To make it flat, the Versa would not get that kind of comfy rear seat. There were enough complaints about the non-flat cargo area, though, so that in Japan Nissan gave the Versa's little brother, the NOTE, a flat cargo floor. But you don't get a full-size rear seat in the NOTE.
~marc
~marc
Should I be worried? Is something wrong? I've seen other people posting that they are getting about 30MPG with 100% city driving. Please help. Thanks.
What I would suggest is the next time you have the opportunity to go on a longer highway trip, take your car and try to put at least 200 miles of just highway driving. Then fill up. It won't be the most accurate, since it's better to do this on a closer to empty tank, but at least it will give you a rough estimate. Hopefully the number will be above 30.
Also, my interpretation of city driving (since I don't live in an extremely congested area) is different than if I was constantly driving in the downtown of a big city...particularly Chicago.
As a good sample, Consumer Reports gives three mileage numbers for each vehicle tested: City, Highway, and Overall. Their city mode is true city. Their current issue has the Fit, among others, tested. The Fit Automatic got 22 MPG in their city mode, with the manual getting 26 MPG. The highways numbers are 43 and 39 MPG, respectively.
Your numbers, while on the lower end, are within a reasonable range of CR's numbers for the automatic Fit (you did not tell us which transmission your Fit has).
I used to live in Japan near Tokyo. In its extremely congested city streets, even a 1.3 liter Fit (smaller than the US-spec Fit and is more economical) can easily get a mileage like 18~19 MPG. It is not unusual for a car with 2.5 liter displacement there getting 12 MPG or less driving in Tokyo.
Just as others have suggested, I would take your Fit out for an extended highway driving. If your mileage is still poor after that, then I would be concerned and recommend that you take your Fit to your dealership for a checkup. Let us know how that goes.
I was going to say that I hope r2g finds out what is causing those poor results, but I guess it might be normal given the conditions.
~marc
1st tank 43.1 mpg (I really don't count this since it was filled by the dealer, it seems a little high)
2nd tank 38.5 mpg
3rd tank 37.5 mpg (the weather is starting to get cold)
on 87 octane, mixed rural,hiway, very little real "city" driving. Drove nice, rarely exceeding 3500RPM, 60-60 on highway speed. Tank #7 was 10% ethanol blend.- Milage dropped to 30.9, which is right in the expected 10% reduction using 10% ethanol. I do fill up until I need 9 or more gallons, fill to same level always. have about 2400 miles on car between 10/10 and 11-6. Oil is at 80%.
Hope milage improves. Car is fantastic to drive. Handles well, has as much power as you ever need. headlights ok.
The dims literally "turn off" at a certain distance. I had some similar lights(That were from Europe) on a jeep a few years ago. I have no problem with them. My dealer checksheet showed the did the ILP prior to delivery. Do not know if they actually did or not though. Been mostly using wal-Mart gas. I will go to synthetic oil when I get a change. I will keep posting as miles go on the car
Wulybugr- Southern Missouri
Ya know when I figure mileage, I take the Miles driven and Divide by the Gallons I just pumped. That will change your numbers I'm pretty sure. I think that's the opposite of what you are doing.
I should also add, that I haven't used the AC while driving and my tire pressure was fine. Also, I only have about 550 miles on the car. I think I might be stuck with the low MPG as long as my driving is circumscribed to Urban Chicago. Will post when and if things change.