First tank I was VERY easy on accelerator pedal and economy was 38 mpg. 2nd, 3rd and 4th tanks were my normal driving acceleration modus operandi which means a bit heavier on pedal but conservative all the same. They were 33, 31 and again 31 mpg.
A friend told me the gas in colder regions like mine has an additive from the refinery which results in decreased economy for these colder months.
My 38 mpg was when the weather was warmer and presumably before the additive in October. Hope this helps. Does anyone know what the additive is?
Anyone with the auto notice a big difference in MPG compared with the numbers the manual guys are posting? I'm thinking of getting a Fit but can't decide between the two trannys. The wife isn't very good on the stick.....double entendre
In reality, which gets better mileage depends a lot on the driver and the type of traffic involved.
There have been many posts supporting the AT getting better on the road due to "Taller" gearing. It doesn't turn as many RPM at highway speeds.
The MT hooks up the engine directly with the front wheels, through the clutch, with no slippage other than driver input. In most situations that SHOULD result in better mileage. In super heavy traffic, the MT driver can be very busy selecting which gear is "Really" the most economical. Even with superior skills we might find it easier to just leave it where it is than to push the clutch in another time. This is especially true in stop and go stuff.
On the other hand, the AT uses some HP just churning it's fluids around, before any power reaches the front wheels. Good news is that Honda spends mega $$$ engineering the engine, tranny and computer to "KNOW" which gear is the best for every throttle input.
With the "Sport" Fit you get the paddle shifters which enable you to select exactly which gear is best and the most fun.
I get a little better mileage overall with the modern AT doing the decision making, and I am not as busy making those decisions.
Interesting post, thanks for the useful info. I bought the Fit Sport Manual, mainly because I wanted to drive a stick again and was bored with automatics. So far my best mileage at 70mph is 35.7mpg. But at 70mph my rpms are at 3500 respectively.
Now...are the paddles good at actually changing the gears when you use them? I mean not like F1 trannys, but does the tranny shift fairly quickly when using the paddles?
3500 rpm at 70?? Doesn't that get a little "buzzy" on the highway? I had a 82 Accord that did 2900 rpm at 70. Hmmm..maybe I'm just used to big V8s that just loaf on the highway.
Haven't driven a Paddle Shifter in a while. Seems they shift smoothly when the paddle is operated. Not a time delay. Probably a little quicker shift than a person normally operates a MT.
I don't personally see any advantage of the paddle shifters for everyday driving. I still believe the computer knows more about the "Happy" Engine/tranny/economy thing than me ?
However, on twisty, curvey roads....! Fun Factor kicks in and the "Happy" driver emerges.. Bring on the paddles! :shades:
I actually use the paddle shifters quite often for normal driving, mostly for going around corners on green lights or other turns where I don't have to stop. The auto keeps it in 3rd gear, so I'll use the paddle shifter to drop it to 2nd and go around the corner without having to use my brakes.
HI, I have 08 MT and get 34 mpg...most travel is at 70-75 mph...interesting enough the RPM's at 70 is 3500...4000 at 80... this is light years different than the accord or the element...But this is more due to the massive difference in motors than anything else. The 06 element we have barely breaks 2500 rpm's at 70mph. I think i may try a synthetic oil at the first change. Any thoughts?
Wouldn't use synthetic oil till 10k how come? I don't think modern cars require time to seal the rings like they did in the old days. The owners manual doesn't mention any restrictions in the use of synthetic oil.
Both my newest cars are 03 Hondas. Therefore I can't speak of the 08 models. However, MY owners manual dictates a break-in procedure.
These are my beliefs: I believe the reason for break-in is that any mass produced engine is not build to exact tolerances. All parts rubbing against other parts need to wear in to each other and eventually produce mirror surfaces that will last a long time. This includes everything that rubs, not just the rings to cylinder walls. Unless things have changes significantly, the cylinder walls have a very slight amount of roughness left there, so that they can properly wear and seat with the rings.
Synthetic oils are more slippery than petroleum based oils. Synthetic oils slow down or possibly prevent proper break-in. I do use synthetic oils, once the engine has had a chance to properly polish all surfaces, to slow any further wear.
This has worked well for many years of breaking in passenger and racing engines, for me. Actually ever since synthetics became available to us.
For all I know, the new engines may only require a few miles to break-in properly. But I will stick with what I know works just fine.
My cars have always exceeded the EPA guide in mileage. Partly to do with driving habits and just possibly due to the way the engines were treated from birth. I will not buy a car with more than 5-10 miles on the odometer. I choose to break it in my way. Your mileage may vary.
You are right on, Kip. Yes, today's manufacturing engineering can meet very tight tolerances, but we are not yet at a point where such things as residual metal shavings can be completely eliminated at the time of assembly. Well, we do have the technology for doing that, but it costs too much to justify it. Given this, some level of break-in must occur at some point in the early life of an engine, and different auto manufacturers apply somewhat different (but in principle for the same purpose) techniques to make certain that engines are broken in. Honda, for instance, adds a certain kind of lubricant in the engine oil that they believe helps with this process, and as a result, they don't want you to change oil until the maintenance minder tells you to, especially in the first go-around. And yes, the extra viscosity of non-synthetic motor oil actually can work as a protectorant during the delicate early life of an engine.
As I mentioned, different auto manufacturers have different ideas about this, and even within the same company, different engineers seem to have different ideas. But all companies agree that some kind of break-in is a good idea.
By the way, during the functional testing on the assembly line, cars are actually dynamo-run to the redline, just to make sure that engines don't blow up (and sometimes they do), so it's not like brand-new engines cannot tolerate a high RPM at all. It's just not a good idea, that's all. :P
got my 2008 sport AT 3 weeks ago and on my 3rd tank (600 miles on the meter) so far. first tank was mostly NYC traffic -> stoooooooooooooooop and go then stooooooooooop some more. Took it on the highway for a longer drive to get my Christmas tree and averaged only 28 mpg. Now, I did take it to over 75mph for most of the ride and it was windy, but 28 mpg is way below what it's supposed to be. is there any truth in breaking in the car???
Well, the revised EPA estimate for the 2008 Sport AT is 27 City/33 Highway, with a combined MPG of 29 (try looking it up from here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm).
So in that context, 28 MPG is not all that off the line, especially considering that you drive around NYC and that your car is brand-spanking new.
What percentage of your 28 MPG is pure city driving?
If that was pure highway, then assuming a reasonable speed and no other unusual driving conditions like a long steep hill climb (i.e., Phoneix to Flagstaff, AZ), that mileage is low for your car. We have a 2007 Sport AT, and according to our mileage records, our car got as high as 39 MPG during the first 1000 miles when we took her out on a long drive. And we live in Minnesota where the gas is always E10, with 10% ethanol, which causes the mileage to somewhat drop.
I would try the following if I were you:
1) Check the tire pressure; make sure it's "regulation" as specified by Honda; 2) Go to a different gas station chain from the one you usually use; fill the car up; 3) Take the car again on a pure highway drive of minimum 100 miles non-stop; 4) Get off the highway and find a gas station right away; fill her up; 5) What is the MPG then?
If the number is low in 5), you'd have a pretty good case to make that there may be something wrong with your car.
If the number is low in 5), you'd have a pretty good case to make that there may be something wrong with your car.
It won't work, my friend had a Honda Jazz outside the US and it was very low mileage and nothing would change it. He's posted it in this forum and others but he's very busy so he hasn't posted in a while. Some Fits just get poor economy. For some reason the true believers want to think it's not that way, but it is. My friend even had factory techs examine the car and they found nothing wrong yet the economy was way off. He traded cars with someone at the dealership for a week or something and he got great economy and the other guy, a manager I think, got awful economy 24mpg! This is the nature of the Fit. Forums are filled with the exact same problems and the mileage is also the same mid 20's in the city and not much better on the highway. The bad ones do exactly the same things. Why? No one knows but Honda refuses to acknowledge the problem. This is why I don't want to buy a Fit for my wife. The only option is to live with it or sell it. For me I'd make the dealer let me drive it for 2 weeks before I's buy it. Of course that won't happen. Maybe the 2009 Fit will be better? But getting the same economy as an Accord in a Fit is a joke!
The point of my suggestion above is to eliminate as much of so-called individual variance as possible. Yes, it is very possible to get a low MPG in a Fit/Jazz. I used to live in Tokyo, and I know that some Fits get an equivalent of low 20's in the MPG. But that's Tokyo driving, in a gridlock going 5 MPH forever. The issue is not whether or not a Fit can get a low mileage. Of course, it can, given the right ingridients. The issue is whether or not a Fit gets a poor mileage even after you opitimize the driving environment. That is why you should create a setting where you should be able to maximize the mileage, as my suggestion above shows. And if your car does not get a good mileage even after that, what is one constant? Your car.
I understand what you are saying, but your example is something called a sample of one, followed by statistically uncontrolled anecdotal evidence. And taking your argument, internet forums also are filled with people getting high MPGs with their Fits. We just don't know how those people are driving, and it really makes no difference. As I said above, the fact that a Fit can get a poor mileage in certain settings should still not preclude a controlled experiment. After all, unless I am mistaken, to the above poster what matters is not the general trend of the Fit that you infer, but how his car is performing.
I understand what you are saying, but your example is something called a sample of one, followed by statistically uncontrolled anecdotal evidence. And taking your argument, internet forums also are filled with people getting high MPGs with their Fits. We just don't know how those people are driving, and it really makes no difference. As I said above, the fact that a Fit can get a poor mileage in certain settings should still not preclude a controlled experiment.
Those same forums are filled with people who are massively unhappy about their Fits and they aren't driving in gridlock. My friend warned me off of them and his was inexplicable because other cars were getting much better economy driven by him. Spin it all you want Honda will not admit their is a problem and these forums allow people to share information and the Fits at least a percentage of them do NOT live up to their mileage claims nor are they even close. Myself I'd love to see a class action lawsuit brought against Honda and wow then they would fix the problem in a hurry I'll bet. Just because YOU don't have a problem, doesn't mean there isn't one. I'm glad we didn't get a Fit because a bad one would be worse than an Accord or a Camry! If you get a good one you are all set and can sit back and tell everyone they are just mistaken about what they KNOW their MPG to be.
I don't think you are addressing my methodology. I have never disagreed with you one way or the other, meaning that the Fit gets a good mileage or bad mileage. What I have said is that the Fit can get a good mileage, and can get a poor mileage, and there you and I are in complete agreement. What I have added is that there are variables that can be controlled for the sake of testing. All I am saying is that a particular invididual unit's fuel efficiency can be tested by a well-controlled experiment. What do you think about that? Just forget about the Fit. I am talking about a methodology.
By the way, you are neglecting the fact that those mileage numbers are released by EPA, and Honda and everyone else just pass the numbers along as required by law. If you want to sue, you'd have to sue the federal government. Good luck with that.
My buddy had the factory engineers go over his car they had to take a plane to get there. They brought all their testing equipment. Meanwhile he drove the General Managers car. Same car, same engine same city same conditions, got significantly better mileage. The manager who previously had gotten great economy was real unhappy about his low fuel economy. The testing proved inconclusive. The Fit clearly has some sort of problem but no one knows or will admit to what it is if they do know. I don't have one and my buddy sold his a long time back, said he should have bought the Suzuki Swift Sport which was great economy and very quick! He got a diesel truck instead. Anyway, test away nothing will be found, nothing ever has been in 6 years. I hope the new Fit is better and consistent with it's EPA ratings, not 50% of what it should get. Nothing against you personally, ok?
By the way, Suzuki Swift IS a great car. It is a little car that is tightly designed and built, and corners like a knife. I wish Suzuki brought it to the U.S.
In Japan, I saw a study done on a number of cars to poll how far off the rated mileage numbers those cars tend to get. The Fit did turn out to be in the category of "off by a lot," meaning that the variance in both directions was pretty wild. So I hear you. I think the Fit can and does please and irritate people all over the world.
By the way, Suzuki Swift IS a great car. It is a little car that is tightly designed and built, and corners like a knife. I wish Suzuki brought it to the U.S.
I actually drove one, great car not super powerful but fun! It was a test drive but still I'd seriously consider buying one if they brought them to the US. They generally have a reason why we don't get the fun cars.
In Japan, I saw a study done on a number of cars to poll how far off the rated mileage numbers those cars tend to get. The Fit did turn out to be in the category of "off by a lot," meaning that the variance in both directions was pretty wild. So I hear you. I think the Fit can and does please and irritate people all over the world.
Yep, I can believe that and it must hurt their overall sales as well considering what a small share they now have in their home market.
What is wrong with these subcompacts is they need really great seats! Give me Recaro's as an option! :shades:
Yeah, it would be nice to have the Recaro that you can get in the Swift Sport.
Actually, the Fit sales were never affected at any time. In its sixth year of production, Honda was still selling a lot of Fits. And the new Fit (JDM) just became No. 1 seller in Japan (exclusing kei cars) in the month of November.
MPG variances are not just with the Fit. Go to a Corolla, Versa, Accord, pick your car forum and you'll find some folks with really really bad MPG that has no cause, and some folks that get really great MPG. So this is nothing unique to the Fit.
thanks for both of your inputs! I'll definitely give Jack San's experiment a try. It's would really dampen much of my merriment from getting the fit if I ended up finding out that I have one of the FIT that is just not going to make the cut, fuel economy-wise. As much as I love it, the whole reason for getting it was that because I was getting sick of driving my grand caravan to commute and paying 200 bucks a month at the pump.... oh, well... we shall see.. If i could get it over 30 on the highway, I'll be happy..
Yeah, it would be nice to have the Recaro that you can get in the Swift Sport.
I remember Sport seats but not Recaros in the Swift. The seats were ok for me. I only drove it for 5-10 minutes. My friend overseas is friends with the owner of the Suzuki dealership. I did get to drive a Civic Type R and a bunch of other cool cars like an EVO IV and an older STI. The Type R really beats the snot out of you even on a mostly smooth road.
Actually, the Fit sales were never affected at any time. In its sixth year of production, Honda was still selling a lot of Fits. And the new Fit (JDM) just became No. 1 seller in Japan (excluding kei cars) in the month of November.
Yeah the new Fit at least the JDM version has everything the old version is lacking like an armrest and adjustable seats and a dead pedal for starters. I'm not sold on the Ladybug styling. But the new one my wife might like IF it has the missing features and get the economy it's supposed to. Otherwise the Scion xD could win out.
thanks for both of your inputs! I'll definitely give Jack San's experiment a try. It's would really dampen much of my merriment from getting the fit if I ended up finding out that I have one of the FIT that is just not going to make the cut, fuel economy-wise.
No harm in trying. But you'll know if it's a bad one because no matter what you do the increase will be very small. They even shut the A/C off in the car and even that didn't make a difference in his. He was certainly ticked off. Imagine the factory engineers flying down to check the car out personally. Yet there was a Fit that was getting over 1,100km per tank! It was advertised on all the Petron gas stations. That's over 600 miles per 10 gallon tank! He spoke to the best friend of the guy who owned the car and they invited him up for a meet and greet where they take long drives and do lunch etc... I don't know if he ever did that. But Fits can get awesome economy or crap. This is why my wife didn't get one. I hope yours is a good one.
I don't believe it.....I crammed fuel to get almost 12 gal into the thing by filling the long neck and then ran it at 'e' and below for a LONG time to 515 MILES out of 1 tank....we are also talking 'epa' flat roads and temps and mph here in FL....I could get mid to high 50s genuine mpg out of the old prius...so I know how to wring the mpg out of the last drop of gas.........
I don't believe it.....I crammed fuel to get almost 12 gal into the thing by filling the long neck and then ran it at 'e' and below for a LONG time to 515 MILES out of 1 tank....we are also talking 'epa' flat roads and temps and mph here in FL....I could get mid to high 50s genuine mpg out of the old prius...so I know how to wring the mpg out of the last drop of gas.........
No of course you don't believe it, you don't have a model with a problem, but I assure you if yours is a unit with a problem you'd be mighty ticked off at getting only mid 20's no matter what you did to improve it. The fact that some owners have a legitimate problem while others do not means little sympathy for those who do have a problem with their Fits. I've seen this on many Fit Forums and it's always the same. A few people with problems and a majority with none so they assume the people are the ones screwing up not the car. So far no one wants to trade cars in the US for a week to see if it's the car or not. My friend was fortunate that the dealer was willing to do that for him and it opened up a lot of eyes. Enough to prompt serious calls to the factory which in the end accomplished nothing. You have no problem, great. I guess it just sucks to be one of the ones that does.
now, of course, if you read the post I was replying to...regarding the 600 miles out of a tank....instead of the low mpg problem..you would not have written the rant..since my post does NOT even relate to the low mpg problem....be more careful next time...
From reading so many posts complaining on bad mpg, and those drivers thinks there is something wrong with their Fit. If I were in their position and desperate to find a solution. I would bring my car for a dyno test, as the test will show what the car output in HP and torque at the wheel. If indeed I have a lemon, it should show its output considerly less than a normal Fit (for it to get worse mpg than a normal Fit). I don't know how much a dyno test would cost, but if it is not too expensive (like less than $200 or so), I definetly would get it done, it will also provide proof on paper to show both the dealer and Honda too. On the other hand if the result does not show any different from a normal output (like this one http://www.vtec.net/articles/article-image?image=622573/07fit5mt.gif), then it must mean it is either the environment (traffics/hills/winter gas etc...) and/or driving habits.
took your advice and drove my best-behaving tank on all highway, stayed only within 2-2300 rpm at between 55-60 mph, and still ended up with only close to 31 mpg.... is anyone having the same problem? I have a mechanic who I trust... perhaps I'll ask him when i bring my fit in for the first oil change... any advice on when that should be and what kind of oil I should ask him to put in? I am feeling really sad.... that my FIT may have been proved to be sitting at the middle-lower end of the MPG variance spectrum....
I did try and tell you all this, although why I bother to is a mystery tome as no one listens. I've just about had it with trying to help people try and understand the Fit has a problem and certain cars have it. It's extremely well documented and on many forums and yet Honda refuses to recognize it as does anyone with a good MPG model. Low MPG models will NEVER get good MPG! :lemon: That's the way it is. my friend went through more than most guys would to sort it out and in the end he had to sell it. From now on I'm off this forum. No use talking to people who don't listen and the redesigned Fit will hopefully be different. Enjoy your High or low MPG Fit and remember to always believe people who tell you it's your fault and blame the way you drive. :confuse: :sick:
My wife's Fit continues to give sub-20 mpg on her very short urban commute (but it did get into the mid 30 mpg on a highway only loop with 4 people inside). The only other observation I've made is that it seems to hold on to lower gears when coasting in the "D" position. In "S" and shifted with the paddles, you can routinely use a higher gear than the regular shift program would allow, and coast down hills etc. in top gear with less driveline resistance. Does anyone know if this transmission has an adaptive function? If so, maybe my wife's learned bad habits from the sales people using it as a demo before she bought it.
Good luck trying to prove it was "the car" and not driving conditions. I've read various claims to have a lemon, and invariably dyno tests said the car was normal. So it's not a lemon. The more rational explanation: With a small engine and variable valves (vtec), the Fit can go from gas-sipper to gas-guzzler. It all depends on how you drive and your local driving conditions. I suppose that can be considered a design flaw, I suppose. But the fact some Fits get in the 40s and some in the 20s is totally natural given the nature of the engine.
If you are getting mid 30s on the highway when loaded down, I'd say there's not a thing wrong with your Fit. The short, urban commute is the problem here. I'd wager that any car short of a hybrid would give worse mileage than even the Fit is giving in those conditions, especially since you are capable of solid highway mileage.
took your advice and drove my best-behaving tank on all highway, stayed only within 2-2300 rpm at between 55-60 mph, and still ended up with only close to 31 mpg.... is anyone having the same problem? I have a mechanic who I trust... perhaps I'll ask him when i bring my fit in for the first oil change... any advice on when that should be and what kind of oil I should ask him to put in? I am feeling really sad.... that my FIT may have been proved to be sitting at the middle-lower end of the MPG variance spectrum....
I am disappointed that you got the kind of mileage you saw. No, it's too high now to make a strong case that the car has a problem. I was in fact hoping that you'd see something like 25 MPG or lower which would be low for a highway mileage for this car from any reasonable perspective.
I have the "window sticker" that came with our 2007 Fit Sport Auto. Right by the big EPA MPG numbers is this:
"ACTUAL MILEAGE will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits and vehicle condtiion. Results reported to EPA indicates that the majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between
26 and 36 mpg in the city and between 31 and 43 mpg on the highway" (bold in original)
I do not have the 2008 sticker, but the numbers should be lower, since EPA revised the estimates.
I am trying to help you because I want you to win an argument against Honda if the car is indeed the problem. At the same time, I am playing a devil's advocate to see how it may pan out. If I were Honda and/or the dealership, I would point this sticker out to you, and say that your car is normal precisely because you got 31 MPG driving highway. You have to come up with an argument to rebut that, and I don't know what that would be. Can you think of something?
If I were you, I would try the same kind of steady highway driving again and again and accumulate the records, to build your case, so to speak. Another way to handle is, though it will cost you a bit, is to get a ScanGauge and monitor the real-time mileage. If the ScanGauge shows a lousy number, then you can point that out to the dealership.
I know that you're trying to help and I really do appreciate all the advice you had given me. I will definitely continue to monitor the fuel efficiency. on fueleconomy.gov it actually states that it may take 3000-5000 miles to break-in a car (which kind of opens a whole can of different worms). And also that cold weather (which we've really been having) may make an engine run less efficiently. I am hoping that come next spring, my car would've been properly broken in and I'll see that MPG number climb to the high 30's. does anyone happen to know how much fuel is wasted when idling to warm up the car? I typically have to warm up for about 5 minutes before that "Engine cold" light goes away. And you are absolutely right, i still have the sticker, and the "expected range" for highway is between 27-39. And that, surprisingly, matches what I've been reading here! I am sure there must be individual differences on each FIT's fuel efficiency, but i tend to believe that the driving style and driving condition play much bigger parts in the variance... but... eh~~ I love my fit regardless.. and reading the sticker actually makes me feel a little better that at least mine falls within the "expected range. Maybe I'll take it down to FL and see how it fairs.
About the idling question, unlike cars in the past that had carburetors, long idling is not necessary for modern cars. So what is a long idle? Basically, anything beyond 30 seconds (amount of time for engine oil to circulate) is considered too long in today's cars. After that, your car warms up much faster by driving. A sample study that I have in front of me shows a car that had a five-minute idling experienced a 15% total drop in the fuel consumption rate versus another car that drove off without idling at all (they used a 2 L sedans in Japan for this study). A long idle does not do your mileage good.
The cold atmosphere is denser, and causes more resistance. In some parts of the country, ethanol is added to gas in winter, which makes a dent in MPG. Driving in snow costs in mileage too, since every loss of traction is energy wasted. So we are in a challenging season to get an excellent mileage. Our Fit's fuel records show a clear downtrend in winter (we are in Minnesota) mileage, and uptrend in May when it is no longer cold.
Thanks for that info as well, I am going to try driving without idling and warming up for a week and see if that would make a difference. I am worried though since I remember being told that driving on a cold engine is bad for the engine. Is there any truth in that? I guess if driving warms up the car very quickly, then there's only a very short period of time where I'd actually be driving on a cold engine? so what kind of mileage are you getting on the highway in Minnesota winter?
Comments
A friend told me the gas in colder regions like mine has an additive from the refinery which results in decreased economy for these colder months.
My 38 mpg was when the weather was warmer and presumably before the additive in October. Hope this helps. Does anyone know what the additive is?
Could it be from putting 5w-30 instead of 5w-20?
Your drop in mileage could be partially attributed to the thicker oil, but more likely is the winter gas.
There have been many posts supporting the AT getting better on the road due to "Taller" gearing. It doesn't turn as many RPM at highway speeds.
The MT hooks up the engine directly with the front wheels, through the clutch, with no slippage other than driver input. In most situations that SHOULD result in better mileage. In super heavy traffic, the MT driver can be very busy selecting which gear is "Really" the most economical. Even with superior skills we might find it easier to just leave it where it is than to push the clutch in another time. This is especially true in stop and go stuff.
On the other hand, the AT uses some HP just churning it's fluids around, before any power reaches the front wheels. Good news is that Honda spends mega $$$ engineering the engine, tranny and computer to "KNOW" which gear is the best for every throttle input.
With the "Sport" Fit you get the paddle shifters which enable you to select exactly which gear is best and the most fun.
I get a little better mileage overall with the modern AT doing the decision making, and I am not as busy making those decisions.
Kip
Now...are the paddles good at actually changing the gears when you use them? I mean not like F1 trannys, but does the tranny shift fairly quickly when using the paddles?
Haven't driven a Paddle Shifter in a while. Seems they shift smoothly when the paddle is operated. Not a time delay. Probably a little quicker shift than a person normally operates a MT.
I don't personally see any advantage of the paddle shifters for everyday driving. I still believe the computer knows more about the "Happy" Engine/tranny/economy thing than me ?
However, on twisty, curvey roads....! Fun Factor kicks in and the "Happy" driver emerges.. Bring on the paddles! :shades:
Kip
I have 08 MT and get 34 mpg...most travel is at 70-75 mph...interesting enough the RPM's at 70 is 3500...4000 at 80... this is light years different than the accord or the element...But this is more due to the massive difference in motors than anything else. The 06 element we have barely breaks 2500 rpm's at 70mph.
I think i may try a synthetic oil at the first change.
Any thoughts?
Kip
These are my beliefs: I believe the reason for break-in is that any mass produced engine is not build to exact tolerances. All parts rubbing against other parts need to wear in to each other and eventually produce mirror surfaces that will last a long time. This includes everything that rubs, not just the rings to cylinder walls. Unless things have changes significantly, the cylinder walls have a very slight amount of roughness left there, so that they can properly wear and seat with the rings.
Synthetic oils are more slippery than petroleum based oils. Synthetic oils slow down or possibly prevent proper break-in. I do use synthetic oils, once the engine has had a chance to properly polish all surfaces, to slow any further wear.
This has worked well for many years of breaking in passenger and racing engines, for me. Actually ever since synthetics became available to us.
For all I know, the new engines may only require a few miles to break-in properly. But I will stick with what I know works just fine.
My cars have always exceeded the EPA guide in mileage. Partly to do with driving habits and just possibly due to the way the engines were treated from birth. I will not buy a car with more than 5-10 miles on the odometer. I choose to break it in my way. Your mileage may vary.
Kip
the AUTO transmission is about 2800 rpm at 70 mph. 3k at 80.
As I mentioned, different auto manufacturers have different ideas about this, and even within the same company, different engineers seem to have different ideas. But all companies agree that some kind of break-in is a good idea.
By the way, during the functional testing on the assembly line, cars are actually dynamo-run to the redline, just to make sure that engines don't blow up (and sometimes they do), so it's not like brand-new engines cannot tolerate a high RPM at all. It's just not a good idea, that's all. :P
So in that context, 28 MPG is not all that off the line, especially considering that you drive around NYC and that your car is brand-spanking new.
What percentage of your 28 MPG is pure city driving?
I would try the following if I were you:
1) Check the tire pressure; make sure it's "regulation" as specified by Honda;
2) Go to a different gas station chain from the one you usually use; fill the car up;
3) Take the car again on a pure highway drive of minimum 100 miles non-stop;
4) Get off the highway and find a gas station right away; fill her up;
5) What is the MPG then?
If the number is low in 5), you'd have a pretty good case to make that there may be something wrong with your car.
Good luck.
It won't work, my friend had a Honda Jazz outside the US and it was very low mileage and nothing would change it. He's posted it in this forum and others but he's very busy so he hasn't posted in a while. Some Fits just get poor economy. For some reason the true believers want to think it's not that way, but it is.
My friend even had factory techs examine the car and they found nothing wrong yet the economy was way off. He traded cars with someone at the dealership for a week or something and he got great economy and the other guy, a manager I think, got awful economy 24mpg!
This is the nature of the Fit. Forums are filled with the exact same problems and the mileage is also the same mid 20's in the city and not much better on the highway. The bad ones do exactly the same things. Why? No one knows but Honda refuses to acknowledge the problem. This is why I don't want to buy a Fit for my wife.
The only option is to live with it or sell it. For me I'd make the dealer let me drive it for 2 weeks before I's buy it. Of course that won't happen. Maybe the 2009 Fit will be better? But getting the same economy as an Accord in a Fit is a joke!
I understand what you are saying, but your example is something called a sample of one, followed by statistically uncontrolled anecdotal evidence. And taking your argument, internet forums also are filled with people getting high MPGs with their Fits. We just don't know how those people are driving, and it really makes no difference. As I said above, the fact that a Fit can get a poor mileage in certain settings should still not preclude a controlled experiment. After all, unless I am mistaken, to the above poster what matters is not the general trend of the Fit that you infer, but how his car is performing.
Those same forums are filled with people who are massively unhappy about their Fits and they aren't driving in gridlock. My friend warned me off of them and his was inexplicable because other cars were getting much better economy driven by him. Spin it all you want Honda will not admit their is a problem and these forums allow people to share information and the Fits at least a percentage of them do NOT live up to their mileage claims nor are they even close. Myself I'd love to see a class action lawsuit brought against Honda and wow then they would fix the problem in a hurry I'll bet. Just because YOU don't have a problem, doesn't mean there isn't one.
I'm glad we didn't get a Fit because a bad one would be worse than an Accord or a Camry! If you get a good one you are all set and can sit back and tell everyone they are just mistaken about what they KNOW their MPG to be.
By the way, you are neglecting the fact that those mileage numbers are released by EPA, and Honda and everyone else just pass the numbers along as required by law. If you want to sue, you'd have to sue the federal government. Good luck with that.
The Fit clearly has some sort of problem but no one knows or will admit to what it is if they do know.
I don't have one and my buddy sold his a long time back, said he should have bought the Suzuki Swift Sport which was great economy and very quick! He got a diesel truck instead.
Anyway, test away nothing will be found, nothing ever has been in 6 years.
I hope the new Fit is better and consistent with it's EPA ratings, not 50% of what it should get.
Nothing against you personally, ok?
By the way, Suzuki Swift IS a great car. It is a little car that is tightly designed and built, and corners like a knife. I wish Suzuki brought it to the U.S.
In Japan, I saw a study done on a number of cars to poll how far off the rated mileage numbers those cars tend to get. The Fit did turn out to be in the category of "off by a lot," meaning that the variance in both directions was pretty wild. So I hear you. I think the Fit can and does please and irritate people all over the world.
I actually drove one, great car not super powerful but fun! It was a test drive but still I'd seriously consider buying one if they brought them to the US. They generally have a reason why we don't get the fun cars.
In Japan, I saw a study done on a number of cars to poll how far off the rated mileage numbers those cars tend to get. The Fit did turn out to be in the category of "off by a lot," meaning that the variance in both directions was pretty wild. So I hear you. I think the Fit can and does please and irritate people all over the world.
Yep, I can believe that and it must hurt their overall sales as well considering what a small share they now have in their home market.
What is wrong with these subcompacts is they need really great seats! Give me Recaro's as an option! :shades:
Actually, the Fit sales were never affected at any time. In its sixth year of production, Honda was still selling a lot of Fits. And the new Fit (JDM) just became No. 1 seller in Japan (exclusing kei cars) in the month of November.
I'll definitely give Jack San's experiment a try.
It's would really dampen much of my merriment from getting the fit if I ended up finding out that I have one of the FIT that is just not going to make the cut, fuel economy-wise. As much as I love it, the whole reason for getting it was that because I was getting sick of driving my grand caravan to commute and paying 200 bucks a month at the pump....
oh, well... we shall see.. If i could get it over 30 on the highway, I'll be happy..
I remember Sport seats but not Recaros in the Swift. The seats were ok for me. I only drove it for 5-10 minutes. My friend overseas is friends with the owner of the Suzuki dealership. I did get to drive a Civic Type R and a bunch of other cool cars like an EVO IV and an older STI.
The Type R really beats the snot out of you even on a mostly smooth road.
Actually, the Fit sales were never affected at any time. In its sixth year of production, Honda was still selling a lot of Fits. And the new Fit (JDM) just became No. 1 seller in Japan (excluding kei cars) in the month of November.
Yeah the new Fit at least the JDM version has everything the old version is lacking like an armrest and adjustable seats and a dead pedal for starters. I'm not sold on the Ladybug styling. But the new one my wife might like IF it has the missing features and get the economy it's supposed to.
Otherwise the Scion xD could win out.
I'll definitely give Jack San's experiment a try.
It's would really dampen much of my merriment from getting the fit if I ended up finding out that I have one of the FIT that is just not going to make the cut, fuel economy-wise.
No harm in trying.
But you'll know if it's a bad one because no matter what you do the increase will be very small. They even shut the A/C off in the car and even that didn't make a difference in his. He was certainly ticked off.
Imagine the factory engineers flying down to check the car out personally. Yet there was a Fit that was getting over 1,100km per tank! It was advertised on all the Petron gas stations. That's over 600 miles per 10 gallon tank! He spoke to the best friend of the guy who owned the car and they invited him up for a meet and greet where they take long drives and do lunch etc...
I don't know if he ever did that.
But Fits can get awesome economy or crap. This is why my wife didn't get one.
I hope yours is a good one.
...just like any car out there you'll buy...I hope you're is a good one whichever you choose.
No of course you don't believe it, you don't have a model with a problem, but I assure you if yours is a unit with a problem you'd be mighty ticked off at getting only mid 20's no matter what you did to improve it. The fact that some owners have a legitimate problem while others do not means little sympathy for those who do have a problem with their Fits. I've seen this on many Fit Forums and it's always the same. A few people with problems and a majority with none so they assume the people are the ones screwing up not the car.
So far no one wants to trade cars in the US for a week to see if it's the car or not. My friend was fortunate that the dealer was willing to do that for him and it opened up a lot of eyes. Enough to prompt serious calls to the factory which in the end accomplished nothing.
You have no problem, great. I guess it just sucks to be one of the ones that does.
is anyone having the same problem?
I have a mechanic who I trust... perhaps I'll ask him when i bring my fit in for the first oil change... any advice on when that should be and what kind of oil I should ask him to put in? I am feeling really sad....
Enjoy your High or low MPG Fit and remember to always believe people who tell you it's your fault and blame the way you drive. :confuse: :sick:
The only other observation I've made is that it seems to hold on to lower gears when coasting in the "D" position. In "S" and shifted with the paddles, you can routinely use a higher gear than the regular shift program would allow, and coast down hills etc. in top gear with less driveline resistance.
Does anyone know if this transmission has an adaptive function? If so, maybe my wife's learned bad habits from the sales people using it as a demo before she bought it.
Manual transmission, sport. I think it's the way I drive - I'm just really good! :shades:
is anyone having the same problem?
I have a mechanic who I trust... perhaps I'll ask him when i bring my fit in for the first oil change... any advice on when that should be and what kind of oil I should ask him to put in? I am feeling really sad.... that my FIT may have been proved to be sitting at the middle-lower end of the MPG variance spectrum....
I am disappointed that you got the kind of mileage you saw. No, it's too high now to make a strong case that the car has a problem. I was in fact hoping that you'd see something like 25 MPG or lower which would be low for a highway mileage for this car from any reasonable perspective.
I have the "window sticker" that came with our 2007 Fit Sport Auto. Right by the big EPA MPG numbers is this:
"ACTUAL MILEAGE will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits and vehicle condtiion. Results reported to EPA indicates that the majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between
26 and 36 mpg in the city and between 31 and 43 mpg on the highway" (bold in original)
I do not have the 2008 sticker, but the numbers should be lower, since EPA revised the estimates.
I am trying to help you because I want you to win an argument against Honda if the car is indeed the problem. At the same time, I am playing a devil's advocate to see how it may pan out. If I were Honda and/or the dealership, I would point this sticker out to you, and say that your car is normal precisely because you got 31 MPG driving highway. You have to come up with an argument to rebut that, and I don't know what that would be. Can you think of something?
If I were you, I would try the same kind of steady highway driving again and again and accumulate the records, to build your case, so to speak. Another way to handle is, though it will cost you a bit, is to get a ScanGauge and monitor the real-time mileage. If the ScanGauge shows a lousy number, then you can point that out to the dealership.
I feel bad for you, and I want to help.
And you are absolutely right, i still have the sticker, and the "expected range" for highway is between 27-39. And that, surprisingly, matches what I've been reading here!
I am sure there must be individual differences on each FIT's fuel efficiency, but i tend to believe that the driving style and driving condition play much bigger parts in the variance... but... eh~~ I love my fit regardless..
and reading the sticker actually makes me feel a little better that at least mine falls within the "expected range. Maybe I'll take it down to FL and see how it fairs.
The cold atmosphere is denser, and causes more resistance. In some parts of the country, ethanol is added to gas in winter, which makes a dent in MPG. Driving in snow costs in mileage too, since every loss of traction is energy wasted. So we are in a challenging season to get an excellent mileage. Our Fit's fuel records show a clear downtrend in winter (we are in Minnesota) mileage, and uptrend in May when it is no longer cold.
I am worried though since I remember being told that driving on a cold engine is bad for the engine. Is there any truth in that? I guess if driving warms up the car very quickly, then there's only a very short period of time where I'd actually be driving on a cold engine?
so what kind of mileage are you getting on the highway in Minnesota winter?