By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I decided to see what I got on the first tankful anway. I figured that the dealer probably topped off the tank as much as possilbe so that I wouldn't come back complaining about my mileage. When I finally filled up again after 304 miles, I topped off the tank too.
My results were: 303.8 miles/8.908 gals = 34.1 mpg
If I had stopped when the pump first shut off instead of topping it off, I would have only pumped about 8.2 gals. Then my results would have been 303.8/8.2 = 37 mpg!
That's a difference of 3 mpg just from the way the tank was topped off (or not).
If I had done this same thing after using only 5 gallons of gas (about half a tank), the 0.7 gallon difference caused by topping or not topping would have made a difference of over 5 mpg!
The moral of this story is:
1) Your results will vary a bit even if you try to top off the same way every time. This is partially because different pumps will shut off differently.
2) If you top off sometimes and not sometimes, your results will vary significantly.
3) If you top off sometimes and not sometimes AND you try to measure after using only half a tank, your results will vary so much that you will be left wondering what in the heck is going on.
Hopefully my 34.1 mpg is about right because that's about what I was hoping for. I'll see how the next tankful goes when *I* am the one to fill it up both before and after.
Mike
Actually, that is true. In fact, "topping off" is discouraged by the EPA, some gas stations, and some car manufacturers.
The problem is that the pump detects "full" by sensing fuel touching the end of the nozzle. If you're pumping at full speed, the fuel seems to back up in the filler nozle of your tank a bit and shut the pump off sooner than if you're pumping slowly. This difference can cause trouble when you're trying to measure gas mileage accurately. If you start pumping again shortly after the pump has shut off, especially if you do it more slowly than it was pumping originally, you can usually get a noticeable amount more fuel in the tank. This isn't necessarily a good thing, but it leads to a dilemna if you're trying to figure out how much gas you "used".
I've always tried to "solve" this problem by "topping off" in the same way every time. But, depending on who you believe, topping off may actually send some fuel back into the gas pump's vapor recovery system and not into your tank.
So, what to do? I don't know for sure. If you never top off, you're at the mercy of different pumps pumping at different speeds with different sensing mechanisms that shut off at different amounts of "fullness". If you top off, you stand a chance of getting an inaccurate reading too. Also, I've now learned that you want to leave some room in your tank for your vehicle's vapor recovery system to work.
I guess the point is that if you really want to measure your mileage, you need to use as much of the tank as possible (to minimize the effect of differences in filling) and you would ideally use the same pump pumping at the same speed every time. And then, you'd either always stop immediately when the pump shut off or you'd "top off" by pumping a little more (understanding that it is discouraged) the same way every time.
Sorry for the ambiguous answer. I didn't realize that "topping off" was as discourage as it is until I researched the answser to your question.
Also, for the most accurate results, top off in the same manner at the same gas station. Each station I go to varies -- at one I can pump another $1 after the click and the station down the street will overflow if you try to put in $.25.
The best figures are the average over numerous fill-ups. One tank can give an inaccurate reading that will be corrected by a number of fill-ups added together.
I drive another brand car, fill up every other day, and I have mpg figures from 26 to 39, but the average of all fuel used for 50K miles is 32. To judge by just one tank would give a false reading.
Aside,
I have a Tercel I bought that one mechanic told me the reason it was burning oil is because the previous owner never really *USED* it, and when I try to make it *GO*, the cylinders, which have never seen that much compression, lose their seal a bit. Engines do wear in to what they are exposed to, I suppose.
over 500 miles ago, filled it up once (they filled it before I picked it up) at about half a tank and reset the trip counter,
and just filled it up again a little below half a tank and
calculated the mpg.
It's a base MT, and my commute is right in the 40-50 mph
range so I can keep it running down around 2000 rpm for most of the ride.
Fill the tank yourself. You can do that immediately upon leaving the dealership. Set odometer to zero. Drive the car at least 200 miles. Refill the tank yourself using the same technique as before, preferably not topping off as that is better for the environment. Divide the miles traveled by the gallons consumed. Report mpg along with notations about transmission, driving style and conditions. Repeat. Several data are more useful than one report.
Sample MPG Report: Using TankToTankTechnique--TTTT--my 2002 Honda Civic EX automatic gives me 32 (31.0-32.7) mpg travelling 80% at a steady 60 mph on the level, 20% around town, in temperatures ranging from 50-80 degrees.
I would greatly appreciate it if people indicate that they use the TTTT when reporting their mpgs. I'm wondering if I should trade my Civic for a Fit and need reliable info. Thanks for your consideration.
Bob
My 02CivicEX automatic is rated 32/38 and gets 32 in mild driving. I'm betting that the Fit will barely beat it. I wish Honda had offered it with a 80 hp engine, as in the UK. Oh, well, there's always gasoline at $5.00 a gallon to stimulate greener consumption. For my children's sake, I hoping for $10 by next summer. That'll leave some petroleum for it's many other more important uses--medicine, plastics, petrochemicals, etc.
Bob
We have a 2002 Civic EX coupé 5-speed manual in addition to the Fit 5-speed manual, and under similar driving conditions and styles, the Fit beats the Civic about 4-5 mpg.
I'm figuring you're odometer is around 3500 - 5000 miles.....
Also, can anyone explain to me why the Fit's final drive ratio is so low? My Civic goes 46 mph at 2000 rpm, 70 at 3000 rp and my Odyssey goes 70 mph, both automatics. But the Fit only appears to do 40, and that's in a fifth gear, whereas my Civic automatic only has a fourth gear. Couldn't/shouldn't Fit change the ratio so that the engine spins 3000 rpm or less at 70 mph?
BTW, here's a good article on the physics of ultra mpg:
http://www.jhcrawford.com/energy/new_cars.html I have an electric bike and it's actually 7 times more efficient than a bicycle powered by pasta-eating. 2000 mpg. 3 cents a mile vs. 40 cents for a Civic.
My electric bike conveniently fits in my Civic trunk, hangin out the back, secured with bungies, cablelocked to the trunk post. What system would I use with the Fit--I can't hang it out the back due to security and fumes.
Thanks!
I'm not sure how you got to 38-39 from Hungarian's post. First of all, in the case of the fit at least, there's no adder for the manual transmission. From the reports I've read on here, the manual and automatic are nearly the same. This is partially due, I imagine, to the higher revs of the manual (more on that below).
At any rate, Hungarian's post said that their fit outperformed THEIR civic ex by 4-5mpg. It didn't specify what they get on their civic ex. You added the 4-5 (plus 2 more) to YOUR civic ex to get the 38-39. Hungarian only reported that they have both cars and the fit gets 4-5 more mpg under similar conditions -- no absolute numbers were specified. And, taking Johnnyb's post into account, it's easy to see that a report of 38-39 would definitely not jibe with other's results. I'm not sure if it was intended this way, but your post almost reads as if you were trying to make Hungarian look silly for reporting that their fit gets 4-5mpg better than their civic ex.
A quick look through this thread shows that most people who average tanks or at least measure full tanks are reporting about 33-35 mpg for the fit. I've seen a range on here (some were partial tanks) of about 26-41, which agrees favorably with the general impression of 33-35 on average. That also compares favorably with the EPA ratings, and does not lead one to the conclusion that the fit has the uncanny ability to exceed the EPA ratings.
As for the drive ratio of the fit, the MT appears to run at much higher revs than the AT. There was one post in some thread that reported that the MT hit 3900 rpm at 80mph but the AT only hit 2900 rpm. I don't know why the MT is geared the way it is, but the mpg reports seem to indicate that it is not killing the gas mileage (at least not when speed are kept at 70mph or below).
Mike
One short tank was in Vegas. I had forgotten the AC cord to recharge the cell phones, so we took a trip to Red Rock Canyon and stopped at some of the pull-outs. I took a bunch of photos while my other half stayed in the car with it running, so that the phones would charge. The power point is switched - I would have prefered 2 power outlets - one switched and one not switched (that's the way it is on the Unlimited) so you could have a choice.
Mileage is from a Fit Sport, auto. Driving conditions are mostly freeway, high speed or slow and go - very little stoplights/stop signs or stop and go. Most of it is either going up or downhill (live at close to 6,000 feet, work at sea level, and there isn't much for shopping around here). There are some short trips, but most of it is over an hour. After the first 2 tanks speeds are (mostly) under 70 mph.
To my thinking the CR review, when it comes out, soon I hope, will rate the Fit mt 32 average conditions, 37 road trip. Not enough to induce me to trade in my real world 29/36 Civic.
Yes, I was being skeptical of hungarian's report and apologize for the tone. I'll buy him a tank of gasoline if the Fit auto comes in at 33 average/40 road trip (4-5mpg edge over Civic) or better in the CR review. I'll also probably buy a Fit, but not till they make it with less than 90 hp.
Bob
This one yielded 35.2 MPG.
Note that I haven not confirmed this yet. However, based on my experience with the government fuel consumption ratings on other cars vs. their actual highway fuel consumption, people's reports on this board, and the current mpg figures on my car (with no more than 40% true highway driving -- the rest being LOTS of stop/go driving), I am assuming this. I will report as soon as I can find out.
"I'll buy him a tank of gasoline if the Fit auto comes in at 33 average/40 road trip"
No need...just keep the money and laugh at the SUVs when you fill up the car.
"I'll also probably buy a Fit, but not till they make it with less than 90 hp."
They do, just not sold in NA. :mad:
I too am dubious of anybody getting 40+ with a fit except as an occasional measurement anomaly. I don't plan on ever reaching that mark in my 5MT even if it's 100% freeway at 65mph or less. I can always hope, but I don't foresee it.
On the other hand, the 33 average is, I believe, very attainable. You may have to buy Hungarian HALF a tank! You said...
" I believe Car and Driver reported 32mpg in their testing, but we don't know the conditions."
Actually, they reported 35mpg (second only in their testing to the 36mpg recorded by the Yaris). The conditions were a 1000 mile road trip to the museums dedicated to the 7 Presidents born in Ohio. That would probably included a lot of highway driving, but some city too.
Mike
Also, this was in North Florida, and we're already running the A/C almost constantly, usually on maximum cool with the fan set on position "2" -- I hear automotive A/Cs don't hurt fuel economy as much as they used to, but I'm sure it has some effect.
Still, no complaints.
Meanwhile, just to mix things up a little, Edmunds averaged 32 MPG in their Fit Sport manual, while Auto Week recorded only 28 MPG in theirs. I, too, can't wait to see the results of Consumer Reports' testing of the manual and automatic Fits, because I think it'll be a more reliable gauge of what to expect in my real-world driving, should I choose to get a Fit.
That the 140 hp/5spMT 06Civic meets or maybe even beats the Fit in a road trip is evidence that Fit needs to improve its gearing. Most cars experience little loss of mpg up to 55 mph, but with poor gearing (or bad aerodynamics, as with the Scion xB) even 60 mph could cost a lot of fuel.
Hey, thanks for the sanity. I went shopping yesterday and had to laugh at a dinnerward set I saw--16 oz coffee cups, soup cups the size of serving dishes. No wonder Americans need SUVs--it's a complete aesthetic. SaneSizing, that's what this list is about!
I did find out though that a new law here in Texas requires 10% ethanol in ALL gas sold in the state after May 1st. I'm wondering if this would account for that much of a difference?
The stuff California requires in their gas (and they are the only ones that do) doesn't seem to affect my mileage, just the price!
A close analysis of corn ethanol reveals it is little more than a pork-barrel subsidy for corn farmers that creates a net energy loss (and gets politicians reelected). Brazil seems to have done better with sugarcane ethanol, due to their climate. But it costs them and the rest of the world lots of rain forest habitat.
The best mpg are the miles we don't drive.
I'm sure my Fit would eat up all those miles out in the middle of no-where. I also think I would have had a much harder time keeping my foot off of the accelerator...
Thanks for the information about ethanol - I'm glad that California hasn't gone that route.
Base MT, Did not run AC during this tank.
About 150 miles highway at 60 mph, 90 miles around town in very hilly WV terrain.
I decided to fill up because needle appeared to show only about 1/4 tank left and I was worried mileage was not that great. I added extra fuel after pump clicked off to bring it to an even $ amount. I drove very gently (not my normal style) to establish a best case scenario. Now I want to see how badly my "normal" driving will affect mpg.
Overall, very pleased since my other vehicle is a 2004 Ford Ranger getting 17-19 mpg and I commute 6 days/wk.
Only major concern I have thus far is the inadequate low beam range. I have not found how to adjust this yet. Anyone know how to get into the headlights for aiming adjustments?
The mileage is 195.4 miles / Gas used is 5.686 gal = 34.37 MPG
The driving mix is 50% highway (@ 65 - 70 MPH)
and 50% city (stop and go and some idling)
I'm trying to baby it during break-in without doing rabbit starts, but the max rpms are ~ 3500.
Not bad so far, not conclusive at all. Tonight after I filled up I pumped my tires up to 40 psi (hot - which is about 35 psi cold). I'll see if this affects the next tank.
I just posted these pics...
271 miles / 9.16 gallons = 29.6 MPG
The driving mix is 50% highway (70-75 MPH)
and 50% city (stop and go and some idling)
I had the A/C on most of the time.
I am a little disappointed. Should I expect the MPG to improve as the car breaks in? I am not driving it aggressively but this car likes to zip right along.
I will try keeping my highway drives around 65 and the acceleration from stops more gradual and see what happens to the MPG. Thanks again and happy driving.
FIT = Fun Intelligent Transportation
gas station and pump. Recent driving has had more highway than
my usual commute cruising in the 40 - 50mph range. Also, since
I'm past the 600 mile "break in" period, I've been pushing the car more to see just what others have been saying about the fun factor in driving this car...