There is some truth to the saying, "It's not good for the engine driving cold." However, today's engines are so computerized that, unlike carburetated engines of the past, they know how to pace themselves, if you will. Once the engine oil circulates, which as I said would take only about 30 seconds or so, your car's engine is actually ready to go, and warming up by driving is in fact just as "good" for the engine as sitting and idling. Yes, the ECU would command for more gas to be injected during the cold phase, using more fuel than otherwise, but at least you'd be moving and getting some mileage, OTOH, if you are idling, you are getting zero MPG!
For pure highway, we have been getting between 36 and 38 MPG around here. With the 50/50 mix of city and highway, we have averaged exactly 32 MPG in nearly 24,000 miles of driving in all seasons. That's not bad, considering that Minnesota is an E10 state, where we have 10% ethanol all the time (not good for mileage).
Speaking of ECU, one another thing that I might recommend is for you to do an ECU reset, just in case your car's ECU somehow had a bad learning episode. There is something called the Idle Learn Procedure which every new Fit should go through at the dealership priro to releases to the customer. Some people redid this and saw improvement in their mileage. There was a long discussion on ILP on this very thread sometime ago, so you may want to run a search for that.
Yes, winter is terrible for mileage. Cold engines. Winter gas. Poor traction. In the southwest where I live, we get more rain than snow. I can really feel the car slow to a stop whenever I coast into a big puddle; it feels like when an airplane turns on the reverse thrusters. And I keep the rpm's high when I go through puddles, for safety.
Tips for winter mpg: Modern cars like the Fit do not require minutes to warm up, so get driving in 30 seconds. However, until the engine light shows the engine is fully warmed, coast as much as possible and avoid quick accelerations or other strains on engine. Also, avoid using the defrost (air conditioner) as much as safely possible since it's a major mpg drain on the small-engined Fit.
I live in a cold climate, with temperature drop to about -20C recently. On those days I usually only let my Fit idling for about 1-2 mins before driving off. On "warmer" days I wait about 30 seconds to a minute. The important thing is to keep the rev low (under 2500 RPM) until the engine cold temperature light goes out. I think your mpg will improve once you stop idling for so long. I too finds the my mpg drops in the winter, probably due to the winter gas and the extra idling.
Defrost...I wouldn't think that the AC will come on in defrost mode when the outside temp is below freezing. In my other car, the AC only comes on in defrost mode above 39degrees. Otherwise you might get a frozen compressor or frozen drain plug. The idea of the AC on during defrost is to dry out the air, which isn't necessary below freezing.
Thanks for the info once again. I've search for ECU, but it seems that there are many different opinions about it. I think I'll just hang tight for the time being and continue practicing how to drive more efficiently until next spring when it warms up and I've driven it for over 3000 miles. For the last couple of days I've been teaching myself to drive using the paddle shift. my FIT takes a long time to up shift from 1st to 2nd, then again from 2nd to 3rd. It always revs well over 2500 rpm in 1st before the AT decides to shifts into 2nd. I've been driving in S mode more often in city traffic and start off right on 2nd instead of having it climb from 1st to second, then shifting to 3rd as soon as it gets fast enough (Before it revs above 2000 rpm). Do you think that would make a difference? or am I actually unknowingly damaging my car? let's say i do decide to reset my ECU, what would be the proper way to "reteach" it?
No, you are not harming your Fit by paddle-shifting. And, in my observation, if done right, paddle-shifting does help with the fuel economy, albeit by a rather small margin. My wife lets the car shift, and I like to paddle-shift. She is a lousy driver in terms of fuel economy, and I am a miser. Combining these factors, I tend to get merely a 10% better mileage (that's a lot, you know) than she does. I do upshift quickly with the paddle shifter, just as you are trying right now. Why not try one tank paddle-shifting, and letting another tank go automatic, and report back to us about the mileage difference, if any? I am sure that people here would greatly appreciate it.
About the ECU reset, what it does is to clear the habits, so to speak, that the car's computer has learned and stored in the ROM. I do not know what "habits" your car has picked up, but by clearing it you are creating an opportunity for your car to learn the world anew. By clearing its ROM and driving it econo-style, your car will learn to do this style of driving as its default mode. So that's how you re-educate the ECU - just drive the way you want to.
By design, the ECU learns all the time, so even if you do nothing, it should eventually catch up with your driving habits, in the first-in, first-out way (exceptions do exist). But by doing a reset, you are accelerating this learning.
Those are very impressive numbers Do you use A/C a lot? I wonder how much will frequent use of A/C affect the fuel economy. Also, do you use regular, midgrade, or premium fuel? Seems to me that premium fuel use could stretch the fuel economy, becuase it definitely does it for my Mazda 626 V6 5 speed - even with 182k miles on the clock I consistently get 25 MPG in city driving with constant use of A/C. And this is in a 3200 lb car with a 170 HP engine. For cars with knock sensors and electronic computer controlled ingition advance, use of premium fuel enables the computer to advance the timing more without knocking, resulting in beter power and fuel economy. I know that some claim it makes no difference, but it certainly does in my car. I get at least 2 MPG less with regular and MUCH WORSE performance as well. Fuel quality seems to make a tremendous difference for mileage.
I have been driving for over 30 years and had all kinds of small cars over the years. I can say for sure that two things that kill the mileage in a small low horsepower engine vehicle are an auto transmission and A/C. I always got the best mileage out of manual transmission vehicles without using the A/C.
I am thinking about purchasing a Honda Fit Sport. Is the one you got Auto or Manual transmission? Also, you seemed to think the factory the Fit is made in can make a difference. Do you know where yours was made?
no need to apologize, I am really learning a lot from you and I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge. About using the paddle shift, I can already kind of see the difference. But I'll definitely post the number after my next fill-up. If shifting using the paddle shift really helps it to be more frugal, as well as making it a smoother driving experience (in my opinion it is, I hate feeling the car revving itself up before it shifts), I don't see why anyone would NOT do it. I'll definitely chat with my mechanic about the ECU thing so see what he says. Would most mechanics find out exactly what kind of oil to use if you didn't specify it to them? Would it be strange if I had purchased my own oil and just ask them to change it for me? or it that just too silly to do since they probably would charge me the same amount and I still have to buy my own oil. anyone has any opinion on that?
I read on a different FIT forum that it seems there are few fellow New Yorkers out there suffering from the bad MPG. might just be the driving condition here!
One thing that puts me off with the Fit is the pitifully small tank, at 10.8 Gal. Other small cars that get 30 or better mpg have tanks of at least 12+ gal capacity. I resent the prospect of having a commuting range of less than 300 miles, which is very possible according to reports of typical mpg in mixed conditions. The Fit has a usable capacity of say 10.3 gallons without worrying aboutr running out, and that's just too small in my opinion. If long trips yield 35 mpg then the range is extended to 360 miles, but I got that range in mixed commute driving in my old Ford Escort wagon with a 12.3 gallon tank..
The tank is as big as it can be because it's under the front seats. It's true that as compared to a 12gal tank, you'll have to get gas more often...maybe 50 miles sooner. To me, it's worth the smaller tank to have the flexible 2nd row seats and large cargo area.
Would most mechanics find out exactly what kind of oil to use if you didn't specify it to them? Would it be strange if I had purchased my own oil and just ask them to change it for me? or it that just too silly to do since they probably would charge me the same amount and I still have to buy my own oil. anyone has any opinion on that?
Good mechanics either know or look up which oil (weight/viscosity) is recommended for your car by the manufacturer, such as 5W-20 for the Fit. Of course, it never hurts to say stuff like, "When you use 5W-20 for my car..." just in case. If you have a good relationship with your mechanic, I'm sure he/she will do the oil change for you even if you supply the "goods," although that would be a bit odd and may even be refused if you did not know the mechanic because just doing the change (labor alone) would somewhat squeeze his/her margin.
The ECU reset is a perfectly easy procedure, by the way, so you can certainly do it yourself for free.
Do you know whether or not the New York State mandates adding ethanol to gas in winter (or at any time, for that matter)? And if so, what is the percentage vs. the gasoline? Adding "E" does hurt the mileage.
NYC traffic kills mileage for any car, though. I spent many years living in and near Tokyo, so it was a challenge getting anything good in terms of MPG there. Actually, it's the hybrid that truly thrives in that kind of environment.
Right. I knew the tank location constrains its size but am still quite put off by the limitation. Too bad they couldn't have put a fat feeder tube on it to add another 1+ gallons. At a usable 11-11.5 gal I could be happy with the range. Come on Honda, give us just a little more fuel space.
Then again, maybe they already did that and the under-seat tank is really a 9+ gallon job and the rest is in the feeder.
I can see that this car's tank size can become a limitation for some people. Unfortunately, Honda has decided not to change the tank size for the next-gen Fit that has just been released in Japan. I guess we have to live with it!
With my wife and myself, we were getting virtually the same range as the Fit with our previous car (RAV4) with a 15.3 G tank. Needless to say, we are now paying a lot less money (like 40% less) to cover the same distance!
A fuel tank under the front seats? I somehow do not feel very safe sitting on top of 10 gallons of highly flammable liquid. Especially if the vehicle is hit and fuel tank ruptures. Is it a plastic tank?
The real reason for the small gas tank is for you to feel good when you fill it up. You spend less money filling it up. Get it? Never mind the range, it is all psychology. You get the illusion of having a very economical vehicle. What if they put a 20 gallon tank in this thing? Then everybody would complain about spending close to $ 60 to fill it up. As it is, it is under $ 30.
it's not just psychology if you actually are using less gas to drive the same distance. His point was that while the RAV 4 has a much bigger tank, both tanks get around the same mileage. So if both tanks get the equal amount of mileage and you pay much less to fill-up one of the tanks, then you're really saving a lot by drive that car. How is that psychology or an illusion when you actually save?
Having the fuel tank in the middle of the car is as safe (or safer) than having it more towards the rear, especially in the case of a rear-end collission. But if you have a tank of gas blowing up right under your or few feet behind you I don't think the outcome will be much different.
true. now, THAT's an illusion thinking that just because the tank is a few feet behind you, it is safer when it blows up. The fact is, if the crash is serious to a point where the tank blows up, that few feet won't make a difference at all.
I've been reading posts on another forum devoted to FIT and the read a couple of posts saying that the fit takes around 5000 miles to properly break in. and that many are seeing an initial drop on fuel economy and finding it pick up after a few thousand miles. I don't know if there is any truth in that but I will come back and report once I pass 5k. Regardless of the MPG, I love my FIT
My co-worker traded in his 2004 Infinity just before Halloween for a Scion XD. Gas prices were his main reason for dumping the Infinity. The XD has Toyota's 1.8 engine and his has a 4 speed auto. He repoted that driving on his daily 55 mile commute that he gets between 32 and 36 mpg in a mix of stop and go and freeway driving. This mileage is better than what 2008 XB drivers are getting.
oookay... so reporting in on my last tank.. This is after your advice of not idling to warm up more than 10 sec, using the paddle shift so that it doesn't rev beyond 2500 rpm, always driving at the highest gear possible, 87 at a local mobil station. I purposely stayed off the highway so this tank was completely New York City, Winter, stop-and-go traffic. My brand-spankin' new 2008 FIT Sport AT with a little over 800 miles on it yielded only 21 MPG!!!!!!!!
should I be concerned....? is New York City driving REALLY THAT BAD??!!! anyone in the area, I would appreciate some feedback, or any feedback at all.
21 MPG in a NYC stop-n-go traffic is definitely within the possible MPG domain of the Fit, esp. in winter, and in a very new car. That's about 9 km/L, and yes, in Tokyo even 1.3 L Fits can get a mileage like that on occasion. So knowing what the NYC traffc is like, I would say it can be that bad for your Fit.
This may not be much of a consolation, but my feeling also is that this is about the worst possible MPG scenario that you can be in, and that it can only get better from there.
my previous car was a 96 Dodge Grand Caravan and on average I get 12-14 miles to the gallon the way I drove. obviously the FIT does MUCH better than that. But the improvement from the Grand Caravan to the FIT seems minute when you consider that it's a MUCH NEWER and MUCH SMALLER car...
Anyone with any idea why it is that, besides driving style and road condition, two units of the same car (model/trim) coming from the same factory, using the same kind of gasoline would yield different MPG? I am speaking a of hypothetical, completely controlled, experimental situation. Or are they really "suppose" to get exactly the same MPG?
The reason is that no two cars are identical. Every part on every car is slightly different. Think about the variety of different mechanical problems people have. Why do some folks have automatic transmission problems at 20,000 miles an others at 100,000 miles. Granted there are different driving condition, but most people who have problems at 20,000 miles are necessarily racing around. The reason is that components within that transmission have very slight differences and imperfections that create different failure rates.
And it's the same with MPG. There are thousands of components within the drive-train, and some have small imperfections creating inefficient burning of fuel, imperfect timeing and spark plug firing, extra friction within the cylinders, etc. There are specifications for all of these components, but if the particular components on your car are at the low end of the spec range then you may get lower MPG. Just like if you have a transmission with slight imperfections in the components you'll have problems with your transmission sooner.
So we're basically talking about luck and probability. If I had a car that consistently got poor MPG and the dealer can't find anything wrong (i.e. it's within spec), I wouldn't plan on keeping the car for the long term, because really poor MPG means that there are problems with some internal components, however small, which could lead to an earlier failure.
Think of poor MPG as a symptom to something being wrong and just because the dealer says they can't find anything doesn't mean that there isn't a mechanical problem on some component with the car.
Bottom line is that every car is different. While the driver will have an impact, the inherent mechanical components will also determine MPG and failure rates. That's why every car batter, AC compressor, alternator, water pump, etc don't all fail at the same time, and is why everyone doesn't get the same MPG even if driving in identical conditions.
When cars come off the production line, right before the final inspection takes place, all units are put on the dynamo for performance testing. As far as I know, auto manufacturers do not check the fuel efficiency there (because they don't have to - it's the regulatory bodies that do), but they do test that, for instance, each unit is producing a certain amount of horsepower at the drive axle. However, variance is allowed, to a point. What I recall from my automotive days is that the dynamo drivers are instructed to drive at different RPMs, so that they can measure what the drive axle is producing. There is a computer panel by the dynamo driver, and the driver is supposed to follow the pattern. When the car's numbers are within a certain range, they pass. The variance is small, but it is there. So to this extent, you could say that no two units ever produce the same performance, albeit with not much difference.
In the very old days, the variances could be huge. Today, they are well-controlled but not so super-tightly controlled as to be identical in all aspects. Given this, it would not be surprising for any two units of the same car to have non-identical MPGs, even in a lab setting.
Interesting points! Thanks to both of you. I observed some interesting changes in my FIT (sport AT, currently at 850 miles) today. No significant improvement of fuel economy yet (actually no improvement at all). However, I see a difference in the way it is shifting gears. It used to be that my FIT needed to stay in 1st gear and revved over 2500 rpm to get up to speed and to get into 2nd, then the same from 2nd to 3rd. Today is the first day I've driven without shifting into 2nd, then 3rd using the paddle shift since I started doing that exclusively a week ago. What I see is that my FIT now shifts more smoothly from 1st to 2nd then to 3rd without having to rev over 2100 rpm., much like my '03 Civic. I am very happy about this change, but am wondering if anyone has had similar experience or knows why this happens. Could it be that the ECU we were discussing is adapting to the driving style I have been force feeding it this past week and is adjusting itself? Or is my FIT is just more "broken-in" and thus driving more smoothly? What kind of indication can I take this change to be as relates to the fuel economy of my FIT? too many questions... My wife called me obsessed last night... hah
ECU may have picked up your driving habits. Other elements that can be accountable for different behavior of the car may include, but not limited to, atmospheric conditions such as the temperature, your car's loading condition (how many pax, luggage, etc.), and yes, the car being broken in. All these and other elements may be the cause.
One thing about the ECU is that it constantly learns, so do not be surprised even if your car keeps on behaving differently.
Your astute observations may become rather valuable to a forum such as this. Keep watching and recording your observations. I, for one, would be very interested in hearing about what you are seeing in your Fit.
To be honest I have never thought myself to be a "Car Person", who would be interesting in these forums. Guess the FIT brought it out of me. the faster shift from 1st to 2nd quickly went away as I discovered today. Unless I step on the gas and accelerate REALLY gently, it'll rev up to just below 2400 rpm before it shifts automatically. from 2nd to 3rd though, smooth as it was yesterday.
I find it much easier, and much more fun to drive in S in city traffic, since I can start off right on 2nd and shift right into 3rd once I got up to 10 mph, 4th at 20 mph, then 5th at 30mph. I like the fact that in S mode it returns to the lower (or higher? I never knew where 1st is the highest or the lowest) gears automatically, it's like driving a MT without having to worry about the clutch. they say the FIT is the poor man's race car. The FIT sport AT is the lazy man's MT.
my previous car was a 96 Dodge Grand Caravan and on average I get 12-14 miles to the gallon the way I drove. obviously the FIT does MUCH better than that. But the improvement from the Grand Caravan to the FIT seems minute when you consider that it's a MUCH NEWER and MUCH SMALLER car...
I'm not sure which engine you had, but in the Grand Caravan, you got about 75% of the advertised mileage under the new EPA guidelines (3.3L had 16MPG City, you got 12). You are getting the same in your Fit (21-22MPG when it has an advertised 27MPG, actually in the Fit you are getting closer to 80% of the advertised mileage). Looks like you are doing just fine to me!
I find it much easier, and much more fun to drive in S in city traffic, since I can start off right on 2nd and shift right into 3rd once I got up to 10 mph, 4th at 20 mph, then 5th at 30mph.
Careful doing this, you'll end up lugging the engine (running at too low RPMs) and lowering your mileage below what it normally would be. Others may disagree with me, but my MUCH torquier 2.4L Accord really bogs down at 35MPH in 5th. 4th gear at 20 MPH? Sounds way too slow for that gear. I'd think something like this:
Your numbers look better, and less chance of bogging the engine.
kaydens,
Honda had a reason for putting 1st gear in the Fit AT. Might be a good idea to use it.
Personally, I would let the transmission select which gear to be in. I'm certain that I do not know more than the Honda engineers that have sophisticated equipment to figure the exact shift points for mileage and longevity.
The paddles can be fun on curvey roads and possibly useful in some other situations. Other than that they are a novelty item, that can do more harm than good. .
I've never thought about looking at it that way! that's quite a consolation. kinda helps me confirm that it really IS the New York City traffic that brings down the fuel economy. I really hope I could hear from other FIT owners driving in New York City though... But thanks for that info!
oh no... what do you mean by lugging? perhaps I should stop doing that... hopefully since I've only been doing it for a little over a week, no serious, permanent damage is done.... yikes!!!! Although, the AT (as preset by Honda, I suppose) shifts earlier than your numbers... while it all depends on the road condition, on an open road, the AT takes me to third at around 15 MPH and to 4th at around 23 MPH. I'll observe carefully the AT action today when I drive to work. Thanks for the suggestion!
You know, I wondered about the same thing. why would they put in a first gear if they would let you start on 2nd? you are absolutely right that our knowledge of the mechanics of the car is nowhere close to that of a Honda engineer, but my question about gear shifting is that, I can kind of understand what you guys (Kip and thegraduate) are saying. However, depending on how I accelerate, the gear shift would occur at a different MPH. So, then, is the suggestion to always drive in the highest gear to save gas only a myth? If it's indeed bad for the car and also bad for the fuel economy to do that, then how do we know what is the optimum gear/rpm/mpg correlation? and what kind of damage are we talking about when you "lug" or "bog" the engine?
".... If it's indeed bad for the car and also bad for the fuel economy to do that, then how do we know what is the optimum gear/rpm/mpg correlation?...."
They put low gear in the tranny because they figure it is needed to allow the engine to have enough power "Efficiently" to get the mass moving from a stopped or near stopped condition.
Keep this fact in mind. The horse power rating on the engine is at near red line, or maximum RPM. At Idle the Horse power is quite low. If we force the engine to stay in the low RPM ( low power) range, we are forcing it to do work requiring more power, than we are allowing it to have. You can throw tons of fuel into that slow turning engine and the horsepower does not increase unless the RPM increases. It is not a happy engine!
The computer in your car has been educated to know the best combos.
When you use more throttle, the computer knows the engine is being called upon to "Pull" better. Therefore it holds in a gear a little longer or down shifts to keep everything mechanical in their "Happy" zone.
Interesting that with a scan-gage you can actually observe, real time, the mpg.
Not unusual to watch it going up hill and the MPG drop because of the gravity thing.
Please allow a demonstration, although the numbers are not exact and are for illustration.
Let's say you are on Flat ground with the "cruise on" and are getting 40 mpg. As you start up a hill, the mpg begins to drop. If you have your foot placed lightly on the throttle, you would feel the peddle go closer to the floor. For this purpose lets say it gets down to 30 mpg and you are not at the top. The tranny down shifts or unlocks the torque converter to allow the engine to get to a higher rpm and more power to deal with the load of the uphill.
Now it can pull better and the throttle may rise slightly, because less fuel is now needed. You may see the MPG actually go higher than it was just before the downshift took place.
Without a scan-gauge you can experience this, especially with a MT and possibly with auto paddles. Keep the throttle in a position to maintain a given speed on a steep hill. While holding the throttle in that position, quickly downshift from 5th to 4th. You may see the speed actually increase, even though the throttle is being held in the same place.
A happy engine is an efficient engine!
Rule of thumb is that being in a higher rear will burn less fuel. However if being in that higher gears requires a lot of throttle, we are throwing a lot of fuel into an engine that is not at an efficient state, and wasting gas.
No doubt someone will dispute this post. Arguments like when the engine is in a lower gear it turns more RPM and therefore the injectors fire more often and so forth. My belief is that the engineers have worked out the best balance, and know more than me.
Thanks for the illustration. I kinda get the idea now. My question is that, while I understand your point from the point of view of going up a hill, when driving on a relatively flat road, and while the car is already moving, wouldn't it be the most efficient to be in the highest gear, since on a flat road, rpm only would lower when shifting into a higher gear? took at different route to work today so I can see my FIT's AT at work on a flat straightaway. gear/rpm/mph relations I observed: (numbers are estimates, obviously) shifts into: 2nd @ 2200 rpm/8 mph 3rd @ 2100 rpm/18 mph 4th @ 2000 rpm/27 mph 5th @ 2000 rpm/35 mph
These numbers are quite consistent with the numbers thegraduate posted. I wondered if he got those numbers by observing or from his own driving experience. I am actually quite happy with the number I've observed today. I may, as you guys have suggested, go easy on driving in the S mode for a while and see how things go.
Hi. Can I comment about the correlation between the opening of the throttle and fuel consumption, as well as about driving in the highest gear possible?
In the old carbureter-equipped engines, there was a direct correlation between the opening of the throttle and how much fuel went into the engine. The further you step in, the more gas. However, in today's electronically controlled fuel injected engines, it is not always that way. If you are in a high gear, and then due to the lack of torque you step on the gas pedal, in most cases the ECU will direct the fuel injector to inject just enough gas to propel the vehicle in that gear. And if that is not enough, the ECU sends a signal to downshift or prevent you from using that gear (if it's an automatic transmission, of course!). In other words, there is not a perfect correlation between how much you step in on the gas pedal and the actual gas volume used when it comes to modern vehicles.
About using the high gears, it is generally understood today that using the highest gear possible does help with the fuel economy, so long as you are not doing it despite the obvious complaints from the engine, e.g., knocking sound. Again, this is because the ECU makes adjustments. And if the ECU is not happy about what you are doing, your AT will either kick down or you cannot use that gear at all.
Many of you with the Fit Sport have probably noticed that you cannot always force the transmission to go into a certain gear no matter how many times you hit the "+" lever. That is precisely what the computer is doing to prevent you from using the gear that it deems inappropriate in the given setting.
There are some differences among different cars in this kind of behavior. However, one thing that is almost always true is that with today's fuel injected cars, there isn't the kind of direct correlation between the pedal depth and fuel flow as was the case with carburetors.
Comments
For pure highway, we have been getting between 36 and 38 MPG around here. With the 50/50 mix of city and highway, we have averaged exactly 32 MPG in nearly 24,000 miles of driving in all seasons. That's not bad, considering that Minnesota is an E10 state, where we have 10% ethanol all the time (not good for mileage).
Speaking of ECU, one another thing that I might recommend is for you to do an ECU reset, just in case your car's ECU somehow had a bad learning episode. There is something called the Idle Learn Procedure which every new Fit should go through at the dealership priro to releases to the customer. Some people redid this and saw improvement in their mileage. There was a long discussion on ILP on this very thread sometime ago, so you may want to run a search for that.
Tips for winter mpg: Modern cars like the Fit do not require minutes to warm up, so get driving in 30 seconds. However, until the engine light shows the engine is fully warmed, coast as much as possible and avoid quick accelerations or other strains on engine. Also, avoid using the defrost (air conditioner) as much as safely possible since it's a major mpg drain on the small-engined Fit.
I've search for ECU, but it seems that there are many different opinions about it. I think I'll just hang tight for the time being and continue practicing how to drive more efficiently until next spring when it warms up and I've driven it for over 3000 miles. For the last couple of days I've been teaching myself to drive using the paddle shift. my FIT takes a long time to up shift from 1st to 2nd, then again from 2nd to 3rd. It always revs well over 2500 rpm in 1st before the AT decides to shifts into 2nd. I've been driving in S mode more often in city traffic and start off right on 2nd instead of having it climb from 1st to second, then shifting to 3rd as soon as it gets fast enough (Before it revs above 2000 rpm). Do you think that would make a difference? or am I actually unknowingly damaging my car?
let's say i do decide to reset my ECU, what would be the proper way to "reteach" it?
No, you are not harming your Fit by paddle-shifting. And, in my observation, if done right, paddle-shifting does help with the fuel economy, albeit by a rather small margin. My wife lets the car shift, and I like to paddle-shift. She is a lousy driver in terms of fuel economy, and I am a miser. Combining these factors, I tend to get merely a 10% better mileage (that's a lot, you know) than she does. I do upshift quickly with the paddle shifter, just as you are trying right now. Why not try one tank paddle-shifting, and letting another tank go automatic, and report back to us about the mileage difference, if any? I am sure that people here would greatly appreciate it.
About the ECU reset, what it does is to clear the habits, so to speak, that the car's computer has learned and stored in the ROM. I do not know what "habits" your car has picked up, but by clearing it you are creating an opportunity for your car to learn the world anew. By clearing its ROM and driving it econo-style, your car will learn to do this style of driving as its default mode. So that's how you re-educate the ECU - just drive the way you want to.
By design, the ECU learns all the time, so even if you do nothing, it should eventually catch up with your driving habits, in the first-in, first-out way (exceptions do exist). But by doing a reset, you are accelerating this learning.
I always got the best mileage out of manual transmission vehicles without using the A/C.
I'll definitely chat with my mechanic about the ECU thing so see what he says. Would most mechanics find out exactly what kind of oil to use if you didn't specify it to them? Would it be strange if I had purchased my own oil and just ask them to change it for me? or it that just too silly to do since they probably would charge me the same amount and I still have to buy my own oil.
anyone has any opinion on that?
I read on a different FIT forum that it seems there are few fellow New Yorkers out there suffering from the bad MPG.
might just be the driving condition here!
Anyone have any feedback on this?
anyone has any opinion on that?
Good mechanics either know or look up which oil (weight/viscosity) is recommended for your car by the manufacturer, such as 5W-20 for the Fit. Of course, it never hurts to say stuff like, "When you use 5W-20 for my car..." just in case. If you have a good relationship with your mechanic, I'm sure he/she will do the oil change for you even if you supply the "goods," although that would be a bit odd and may even be refused if you did not know the mechanic because just doing the change (labor alone) would somewhat squeeze his/her margin.
The ECU reset is a perfectly easy procedure, by the way, so you can certainly do it yourself for free.
Do you know whether or not the New York State mandates adding ethanol to gas in winter (or at any time, for that matter)? And if so, what is the percentage vs. the gasoline? Adding "E" does hurt the mileage.
NYC traffic kills mileage for any car, though. I spent many years living in and near Tokyo, so it was a challenge getting anything good in terms of MPG there. Actually, it's the hybrid that truly thrives in that kind of environment.
Then again, maybe they already did that and the under-seat tank is really a 9+ gallon job and the rest is in the feeder.
With my wife and myself, we were getting virtually the same range as the Fit with our previous car (RAV4) with a 15.3 G tank. Needless to say, we are now paying a lot less money (like 40% less) to cover the same distance!
Seems the Chevy Pickups were also having similar issues several years ago.
Actually some of the stronger polymer tanks just might be safer than steel.
Kip
True that driver, load, terrain and weather conditions, all play a part. True there will always be unhappy souls, no matter what.
It just seems that more people are fussing about poor mileage when , according to their post, they are doing everything right. :confuse:
Spent some time yesterday on the Yaris and Scion forums and there just seem to be more happy campers over there as far as mileage goes. .
Are there really issues with the Fit that Honda can't get a handle on?
Kip
the xb seems to get upper 20s mpg, so that's nothing great.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Scion&model=xB
xB upper 20s
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Scion&model=xD
xD lower 30s
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Honda&model=Fit
Honda Fit low to mid 30s
So based on this, the Fit does at least as good or better than the Scions.
so reporting in on my last tank.. This is after your advice of not idling to warm up more than 10 sec, using the paddle shift so that it doesn't rev beyond 2500 rpm, always driving at the highest gear possible, 87 at a local mobil station.
I purposely stayed off the highway so this tank was completely New York City, Winter, stop-and-go traffic.
My brand-spankin' new 2008 FIT Sport AT with a little over 800 miles on it yielded only 21 MPG!!!!!!!!
should I be concerned....? is New York City driving REALLY THAT BAD??!!!
anyone in the area, I would appreciate some feedback, or any feedback at all.
This may not be much of a consolation, but my feeling also is that this is about the worst possible MPG scenario that you can be in, and that it can only get better from there.
bobw3 ,
They seem to be getting about the same mileage as the Fits that are getting "GOOD" mileage.
It just seems that there are less complaints, especially on the Yaris forums, of folks getting below par mileage, than on the Fit forums.
Please spend some time over there and post your conclusions.
Thanks,
Kip
The '07 Yaris automatic with 53 folks reporting has MPG ranging from 23-44mpg
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Honda&model=Fit
the Fit range '07 auto range is from 21-46, so it is a little wider.
The '07 Civic is also about the same.
This is all with at least 30+ folks reporting, not just 2 or 3.
I think the bottom line is that all cars will fall around the EPA range, which is why the new EPA estimates are fairly broad ranges.
And it's the same with MPG. There are thousands of components within the drive-train, and some have small imperfections creating inefficient burning of fuel, imperfect timeing and spark plug firing, extra friction within the cylinders, etc. There are specifications for all of these components, but if the particular components on your car are at the low end of the spec range then you may get lower MPG. Just like if you have a transmission with slight imperfections in the components you'll have problems with your transmission sooner.
So we're basically talking about luck and probability. If I had a car that consistently got poor MPG and the dealer can't find anything wrong (i.e. it's within spec), I wouldn't plan on keeping the car for the long term, because really poor MPG means that there are problems with some internal components, however small, which could lead to an earlier failure.
Think of poor MPG as a symptom to something being wrong and just because the dealer says they can't find anything doesn't mean that there isn't a mechanical problem on some component with the car.
Bottom line is that every car is different. While the driver will have an impact, the inherent mechanical components will also determine MPG and failure rates. That's why every car batter, AC compressor, alternator, water pump, etc don't all fail at the same time, and is why everyone doesn't get the same MPG even if driving in identical conditions.
When cars come off the production line, right before the final inspection takes place, all units are put on the dynamo for performance testing. As far as I know, auto manufacturers do not check the fuel efficiency there (because they don't have to - it's the regulatory bodies that do), but they do test that, for instance, each unit is producing a certain amount of horsepower at the drive axle. However, variance is allowed, to a point. What I recall from my automotive days is that the dynamo drivers are instructed to drive at different RPMs, so that they can measure what the drive axle is producing. There is a computer panel by the dynamo driver, and the driver is supposed to follow the pattern. When the car's numbers are within a certain range, they pass. The variance is small, but it is there. So to this extent, you could say that no two units ever produce the same performance, albeit with not much difference.
In the very old days, the variances could be huge. Today, they are well-controlled but not so super-tightly controlled as to be identical in all aspects. Given this, it would not be surprising for any two units of the same car to have non-identical MPGs, even in a lab setting.
I observed some interesting changes in my FIT (sport AT, currently at 850 miles) today. No significant improvement of fuel economy yet (actually no improvement at all). However, I see a difference in the way it is shifting gears. It used to be that my FIT needed to stay in 1st gear and revved over 2500 rpm to get up to speed and to get into 2nd, then the same from 2nd to 3rd. Today is the first day I've driven without shifting into 2nd, then 3rd using the paddle shift since I started doing that exclusively a week ago. What I see is that my FIT now shifts more smoothly from 1st to 2nd then to 3rd without having to rev over 2100 rpm., much like my '03 Civic. I am very happy about this change, but am wondering if anyone has had similar experience or knows why this happens.
Could it be that the ECU we were discussing is adapting to the driving style I have been force feeding it this past week and is adjusting itself? Or is my FIT is just more "broken-in" and thus driving more smoothly?
What kind of indication can I take this change to be as relates to the fuel economy of my FIT?
too many questions... My wife called me obsessed last night... hah
One thing about the ECU is that it constantly learns, so do not be surprised even if your car keeps on behaving differently.
Your astute observations may become rather valuable to a forum such as this. Keep watching and recording your observations. I, for one, would be very interested in hearing about what you are seeing in your Fit.
I find it much easier, and much more fun to drive in S in city traffic, since I can start off right on 2nd and shift right into 3rd once I got up to 10 mph, 4th at 20 mph, then 5th at 30mph. I like the fact that in S mode it returns to the lower (or higher? I never knew where 1st is the highest or the lowest) gears automatically, it's like driving a MT without having to worry about the clutch. they say the FIT is the poor man's race car. The FIT sport AT is the lazy man's MT.
I'm not sure which engine you had, but in the Grand Caravan, you got about 75% of the advertised mileage under the new EPA guidelines (3.3L had 16MPG City, you got 12). You are getting the same in your Fit (21-22MPG when it has an advertised 27MPG, actually in the Fit you are getting closer to 80% of the advertised mileage). Looks like you are doing just fine to me!
Careful doing this, you'll end up lugging the engine (running at too low RPMs) and lowering your mileage below what it normally would be. Others may disagree with me, but my MUCH torquier 2.4L Accord really bogs down at 35MPH in 5th. 4th gear at 20 MPH? Sounds way too slow for that gear. I'd think something like this:
1-2 change - 7MPH
2-3 change - 17MPH
3-4 change - 27MPH
4-5 change - 35MPH
I'd go by these for minimums. Others may disagree.
Your numbers look better, and less chance of bogging the engine.
kaydens,
Honda had a reason for putting 1st gear in the Fit AT. Might be a good idea to use it.
Personally, I would let the transmission select which gear to be in. I'm certain that I do not know more than the Honda engineers that have sophisticated equipment to figure the exact shift points for mileage and longevity.
The paddles can be fun on curvey roads and possibly useful in some other situations. Other than that they are a novelty item, that can do more harm than good. .
Kip
that's quite a consolation. kinda helps me confirm that it really IS the New York City traffic that brings down the fuel economy. I really hope I could hear from other FIT owners driving in New York City though...
But thanks for that info!
yikes!!!! Although, the AT (as preset by Honda, I suppose) shifts earlier than your numbers... while it all depends on the road condition, on an open road, the AT takes me to third at around 15 MPH and to 4th at around 23 MPH.
I'll observe carefully the AT action today when I drive to work.
Thanks for the suggestion!
you are absolutely right that our knowledge of the mechanics of the car is nowhere close to that of a Honda engineer, but my question about gear shifting is that, I can kind of understand what you guys (Kip and thegraduate) are saying. However, depending on how I accelerate, the gear shift would occur at a different MPH. So, then, is the suggestion to always drive in the highest gear to save gas only a myth? If it's indeed bad for the car and also bad for the fuel economy to do that, then how do we know what is the optimum gear/rpm/mpg correlation? and what kind of damage are we talking about when you "lug" or "bog" the engine?
They put low gear in the tranny because they figure it is needed to allow the engine to have enough power "Efficiently" to get the mass moving from a stopped or near stopped condition.
Keep this fact in mind. The horse power rating on the engine is at near red line, or maximum RPM. At Idle the Horse power is quite low. If we force the engine to stay in the low RPM ( low power) range, we are forcing it to do work requiring more power, than we are allowing it to have. You can throw tons of fuel into that slow turning engine and the horsepower does not increase unless the RPM increases. It is not a happy engine!
The computer in your car has been educated to know the best combos.
When you use more throttle, the computer knows the engine is being called upon to "Pull" better. Therefore it holds in a gear a little longer or down shifts to keep everything mechanical in their "Happy" zone.
Interesting that with a scan-gage you can actually observe, real time, the mpg.
Not unusual to watch it going up hill and the MPG drop because of the gravity thing.
Please allow a demonstration, although the numbers are not exact and are for illustration.
Let's say you are on Flat ground with the "cruise on" and are getting 40 mpg. As you start up a hill, the mpg begins to drop. If you have your foot placed lightly on the throttle, you would feel the peddle go closer to the floor. For this purpose lets say it gets down to 30 mpg and you are not at the top. The tranny down shifts or unlocks the torque converter to allow the engine to get to a higher rpm and more power to deal with the load of the uphill.
Now it can pull better and the throttle may rise slightly, because less fuel is now needed. You may see the MPG actually go higher than it was just before the downshift took place.
Without a scan-gauge you can experience this, especially with a MT and possibly with auto paddles. Keep the throttle in a position to maintain a given speed on a steep hill. While holding the throttle in that position, quickly downshift from 5th to 4th. You may see the speed actually increase, even though the throttle is being held in the same place.
A happy engine is an efficient engine!
Rule of thumb is that being in a higher rear will burn less fuel. However if being in that higher gears requires a lot of throttle, we are throwing a lot of fuel into an engine that is not at an efficient state, and wasting gas.
No doubt someone will dispute this post. Arguments like when the engine is in a lower gear it turns more RPM and therefore the injectors fire more often and so forth. My belief is that the engineers have worked out the best balance, and know more than me.
Kip
My question is that, while I understand your point from the point of view of going up a hill, when driving on a relatively flat road, and while the car is already moving, wouldn't it be the most efficient to be in the highest gear, since on a flat road, rpm only would lower when shifting into a higher gear?
took at different route to work today so I can see my FIT's AT at work on a flat straightaway. gear/rpm/mph relations I observed:
(numbers are estimates, obviously)
shifts into:
2nd @ 2200 rpm/8 mph
3rd @ 2100 rpm/18 mph
4th @ 2000 rpm/27 mph
5th @ 2000 rpm/35 mph
These numbers are quite consistent with the numbers thegraduate posted. I wondered if he got those numbers by observing or from his own driving experience.
I am actually quite happy with the number I've observed today. I may, as you guys have suggested, go easy on driving in the S mode for a while and see how things go.
In the old carbureter-equipped engines, there was a direct correlation between the opening of the throttle and how much fuel went into the engine. The further you step in, the more gas. However, in today's electronically controlled fuel injected engines, it is not always that way. If you are in a high gear, and then due to the lack of torque you step on the gas pedal, in most cases the ECU will direct the fuel injector to inject just enough gas to propel the vehicle in that gear. And if that is not enough, the ECU sends a signal to downshift or prevent you from using that gear (if it's an automatic transmission, of course!). In other words, there is not a perfect correlation between how much you step in on the gas pedal and the actual gas volume used when it comes to modern vehicles.
About using the high gears, it is generally understood today that using the highest gear possible does help with the fuel economy, so long as you are not doing it despite the obvious complaints from the engine, e.g., knocking sound. Again, this is because the ECU makes adjustments. And if the ECU is not happy about what you are doing, your AT will either kick down or you cannot use that gear at all.
Many of you with the Fit Sport have probably noticed that you cannot always force the transmission to go into a certain gear no matter how many times you hit the "+" lever. That is precisely what the computer is doing to prevent you from using the gear that it deems inappropriate in the given setting.
There are some differences among different cars in this kind of behavior. However, one thing that is almost always true is that with today's fuel injected cars, there isn't the kind of direct correlation between the pedal depth and fuel flow as was the case with carburetors.