Honda Fit Real World MPG

jkandell

"I'm having some major believability issues with this. If I'm reading it right the stick is 1000 RPM's higher than the AUTO at 70. 2500 rpm in the AUTO and 3500rpm in the stickThat's huge and if true would have a huge effect on MPG and noise."

Yes, it's true. At 70 the MT is loud and not great gas mileage.

jkandell

"It looks like the MT fit uses 0.4gph while decelerating."

That doesn't sound right. The idling MT Fit uses less than that, between 0.21 and 0.32 gph. If the engine were in deceleration mode it would use nothing. Perhaps it only kicks in if you have high rpm?

bobw3

It must be right since scangauge doesn't lie

bobw3

What sort of driving were you doing to get 41mpg? All highway? And at what speeds?

richard613

My last vehicle, a Jeep Wrangler 4.0, used 0.7gph at idle and 0.9gph while decelerating. Auto manufacturers do this to keep the catalyst "lit". If the converter falls below a certain temp it becomes non-functional and it takes time to reach the activation temperature again once the driver gets back onto the throttle. During this time the vehicle's emissions are increased.

My 2002 S-10 was so severe about this that I had poor engine braking (no ScanGauge back then). I had to turn the key off if I needed real engine braking.

jkandell

I wonder which cars use less gas in deceleration shut off mode than they do in idle? I had read that many cars use no gas as soon as your foot is off the pedal to meet environmental standards.

ellenoc

"Yes, it's true. At 70 the MT is loud and not great gas mileage."

Guess everything is relative. My average mpg for the first 10 tanks in my MT Fit was 36.1. I do a lot of highway driving and when I'm on a highway with a speed limit of 70, I zip along at 80. Admittedly I always have the radio on, but I don't find the noise bothersome, and I'm very happy with mpg.

zombietom3

The only way to use no gas is to turn off the ignition, and if you just want to park then don't buy a car. It is unsafe to turn off the ignition when the car is moving and inefficient to turn off the ignition when waiting at a signal. It might be slightly advantageous to turn off the ignition if in a traffic standstill with an expected wait of at least several minutes. Finally, no engine will use less gas when being used for braking assist (decelerating) than it uses to idle. It is an absurd proposition to suppose that a working engine (decelerating is work) could use less fuel than an idling engine.

jaxx1

"What sort of driving were you doing to get 41mpg? All highway? And at what speeds?"

hey, probably 75% highway. in the city btw 40 and 50 and btw 55 and 65 on the hwy

bobw3

Makes sense. I can get almost 40mpg on the highway if I keep my speed to 65mph, so I know if I could keep it at 60mph I'd get in the low 40s, but then most highways I'm on have 65mph speed limits where 65mph is considered slow!

bobw3

to turn off the ignition when waiting at a signal

Why, that's what hybrids do.

Finally, no engine will use less gas when being used for braking assist (decelerating) than it uses to idle. It is an absurd proposition to suppose that a working engine (decelerating is work) could use less fuel than an idling engine.

I think this is incorrect too. During decelerating the enine doesn't require energy but actually produces it, which is why hybrids use deceleration to recharge the batteries, that's also why you can push-start a car with a manual transmission.

scarmis

I can get 40-42 mpg in my '07 AT Sport, now with 37K miles, at highway speeds (65-75 mph), as long as I drive at a steady speed. It seems that decelerating/accelerating really affects overall mileage. In town, I still average less than 30 mpg due to many short hops with lots of traffic stops, and I'm not driving conservatively. The car is fun to drive and I enjoy it, even if my driving style negatively impacts gas mileage.

Most of my mileage comes from two 600 mile road trips I make each month, which accounts for my overall decent gas average of 34.3 mpg. Without those highway trips, though, I'd be averaging somewhere in the 25-28 mpg range.

paul_s

Is that 65 mph in a AT or MT Fit?
*******************************************
Can anyone say if an AT is louder at 70 than an MT?

Would be cool to have scanner reading of both at speed :confuse: :confuse: :confuse:

fitmpg

46.60 mpg on the last full tank of gas. 422 miles 9.05 gallons of fuel. Fill up at same station and pump both times. Have hit as high as 48.339 mpg with my 2007 Fit Sport MT and am closing in on an average of 44 mpg. The key is low speeds and quick, efficient shifting (I try to shift at just over 2000 rpm's, depending on grade, etc.). The car is improperly geared (many think intentionally) for optimal highway cruising with respect to fuel efficiency- almost 3000 rpm's at 60 mph- It's a killer.
The slower you drive, the better gas mileage you will attain. One can also try anticipating stop lights and coasting to them instead of racing from one to another like greyhounds. There are any number of things to do in order to squeeze mileage out of these cars. I learned quite a bit (am still learning) from "cleanmpg.com"
Take a look at the site and good luck to all you "Fit" owners out there! It's a great little car, isn't it?

bobw3

how fast do you drive on the highway?

dgecho1

with over 30 K on an '07 AT Fit, the rpms were always about 800-900 rpm LESS than the MT.......now with 08 Civic AT the rpm is less for any given speed than the Fit and MUCH more comfortable and not ready to wander on the hiway [no electric steering.....] ...speeds? always at or near the speed limit but driven carefully as you say....:)

richard613

I haven't noticed any highway wandering. I do notice that the tires try to "tramline" a bit on the grooved freeways here in SoCal. I credit the tire design more than anything -- Some tires are known for this. Maybe try adding a few psi to the front tires?

paul_s

I test drove a MT and AT FIT Sport to day. The observed rpm difference is 500 maybe 600. No more. That was at 60mph. I could not detect a notable difference in interior sound between the two.

paul_s

I sold my Suburban last night and purchased my FIT today. Pick it up Sunday
Got a new 2008 MT FIT Sport Pearl Blue
Best price I could get was 15,625 + sales tax and $110 tag fee $16,700 out the door. Anyone seeing way better pricing?

Today was the 1st time I sat or drove one. What's the purpose of the ratcheting handle, that will release the seat on the outside top side of the front seats? Seems redundant to the lower seat track release on the front bottom. Was thinking it was bolsters or lumbar but could not figure it out.

I'd like to get one of those center consoles for stuff. Saw it was a special deal from Japan and not listed in the Accessory book????

I hope to start posting my MPG rates. .

bobw3

Today was the 1st time I sat or drove one pretty brave buying one sight unseen! The latch is so you can move forward the first row seats from the back, so if you want to fold the 2nd row down without taking off the headrest, you just push the first row forward, fold the 2nd row down, and the move the first row back to where it was all from the back. otherwise you'd have to either remove the headrest or walk around to the front to pull the first row forward.

paul_s

I test drove the AT and MT BEFORE buying.
Thanks for the seat school.

Is there a lumbar adjuster?

fitmpg

Hello. I try to limit highway driving to 58 mph where possible, but never more than 62 mph. It's tough to do, but the highways I drive are not too bad for slower mph- with the exception of rout 78 (which I am seldom on.)
Brian

grobertson

Got my Tidewater blue MT a month ago. Just at 1500 miles and all in winter weather here. My commute is 32 miles round trip and is a mix of 45mph for the first 10 miles and 6 miles of stop and go.

Anyway, overall average for the 1500 miles was 39.6. I drive a standard very carefully (shift just over 2000, etc). As you might expect I am extremely pleased.

I suspect that when the temp gets above 32 for most of the week my mpg will get even better.

Gene
Love my Fit!

fitmpg

I love my Fit, too. Pretty good mpg considering the weather, newness of the vehicle and your commute. I'm pretty excited about what the car may be capable with respect to mpg. Looking for better weather and the purchase of a "scan gauge II."
I'm looking for 50- plus mpg this spring. I've hit 48.339 as a high thus far. Good luck to you.

zombietom3

1. Hybrids are not the same and should not be part of the discussion on fuel efficiency of the Honda Fit, which has a conventional gasoline-burning ignition-fired engine. It takes more energy (fuel) to start an engine than to idle it, so shutting the conventional engine off for very brief stops is inefficient. In a hybrid the electric motor kicks in to overcome the startup inefficiency. So I repeat that a conventional engine should not be shut off at a stop, both for fuel efficiency and safety reasons. That out-of-control car is coming at you. What are you going to do? It will not wait while you start the car. In a hybrid, power is available much more quickly, as it fires up as soon as the brake is released and the electric motor is ready to apply torque on demand.

2. If the ignition is on the engine is burning fuel. If you turn the engine off while decelerating I hope you carry a signed organ-donor card in a fireproof case. In order to push start a car with a manual transmission you have to inject work into the system, by pushing the car or going downhill at sufficient speed to do what the starter motor normally does - turn the non-running engine over to overcome the initial load and the drag of cylinder compression This has nothing to do with the behavior of the running engine under deceleration.

bobw3

It takes more energy (fuel) to start an engine than to idle it,

Wrong

It takes electricity...aka the starter, to start a car.

zombietom3

You seem to enjoy fighting more than learning. I don't.

thegraduate

As a general rule, 1 minute's idle-time equals the amount of fuel used as one start of an engine.

kipk

>"As a general rule, 1 minute's idle-time equals the amount of fuel used as one start of an engine."

Yes, it does seem that 1 minute is the "efficiency" number on whether to idle or not a modern fuel injected engines. I may have read that in one of those "How to get the best mileage" articles.

jacksan1

I have read a couple of studies from reliable sources which indicated that 20 seconds is about enough to "get ahead" with the fuel savings with idle stop. However, those studies also mentioned other "costs," such as stress on the starter whose design does not assume frequent starts as may be the case with idle stops at every traffic light, for instance.

Hybrids' starters have been engineered with this assumption, as have a few gas engine models that are available in Japan and Europe that have the automatic idle stop mode.

jacksan1

It takes electricity...aka the starter, to start a car.

Bob, indeed it does, but a bit of extra fuel is normally injected at the time of start, which is what creates a debate of how long an idle stop one needs to have in order to overcome this deficit.

bobw3

I realize it takes more than electricity to start an engine, but when I read in post 1673 that, "It is an absurd proposition to suppose that a working engine (decelerating is work) could use less fuel than an idling engine." I tend to get sarcastic in my remarks That's what started my response chain. When engine braking, the engine doesn't require any gas since the car's momentum keep the pistons moving. The RPMs don't accurately measure how much gas is being used. Going downhill under engine braking at 3000 RPMs isn't using the same gas driving 3000 RPMs on level ground.

jacksan1

Ahhh, I shoulda figured that you were being sarcastic! :P

When engine braking, the engine doesn't require any gas since the car's momentum keep the pistons moving. The RPMs don't accurately measure how much gas is being used. Going downhill under engine braking at 3000 RPMs isn't using the same gas driving 3000 RPMs on level ground.

All these are absolutely true. In fact, with today's fuel injected cars, computers are usually programmed to cut off fuel when the throttle is off. Conversely, in today's cars, what the throttle position sensor reads has a large impact on how much fuel is actually injected, and different amounts of gas can be injected even when an identical RPM is registered in different driving settings.

imlowe

Not only does it take electricity (aka energy) due to the Cranking Amperage requirements of the starter. This charge must be put back into the battery which means a load on the engine by the alternator until replenished each time the start occures.

Load = more fuel consumption = less mpg. For short periods my money is on let it idle over start and stop. Plus gas is cheaper than replacing starters as well, and we all know how warranty work goes for wear items like starters and breaks and batteries.

my $0.02 is do what you want but tell us so we all learn from it.

bobw3

i agree.

mustangxr

I keep a log on my Fit Sport MT and record every fuel stop with the mileage and consumption figures. This evening, I added up all my MPG figures and divided by the total number to come up with an average of 34 MPG (US). I have started to think in kilometers per liter since that is how the fit engine is rated in Japan. I aim for 15 km per liter and mostly, I can achieve that, or close to it. The Japanese testing gave them 16 km per liter rating done on a test track or test bed for the L engine.

When I first got my Fit, I ran it to fuel exhaustion, just to see how far it would go and what the needle would look like in the fuel gauge when all the fuel was gone. That was my very first tankfull of fuel so it is not as good as the mileage I now get, but it worked out to 420 miles and 13 US Gallons to splutter and die.

Since then I have achieved 466 miles on 13.4 USGals. Don't ask me how I can get more fuel in the tank now, I don't know. I do fill my tank to overflow by the way, to achieve these numbers and to calculate my fuel consumption figures accurately. All these numbers assume that the fuel pump figures are correct???? Who knows??? However the calculated fuel consumption numbers verify the fuel added and the miles run are checked against GPS numbers so I know they are good.
By the way, I have had no adverse effects on the engine from filling the tank to overflow every time and my mileage numbers are in the ballpark so......

So, for those of you in other countries, the Fit will hold 51 liters of fuel, or 13.4 USGals, or 11.2 Imperial gallons of fuel. This is handy to know if you are heading up country where Gas Stations begin to thin out. In that case you can fuel up to overflow and count on 416 miles or 670 km (with a bit of reserve).

I am not sure why people complain about the range on the Fit. My last car was a V-8 Mustang MT which was lucky to see 280 miles out of a tankfull in town and 350 miles on the highway. Range did not seem to be a problem with that car and the Fit will go another 100 miles further than the Mustang on a tankfull so why complain.

I hope this has been helpfull and that someone may benefit from my numbers.
Cheers, Pete

bobw3

I read somewhere that gas station fuel pumps aren't really very accurate when topping-off multiple times. So while you think you're getting .2 gal for those top-off squeezes, you might not get that much because those top-off squeezes are calculated accurately by the pump. Pump accuracy is measured by pumping 10 gallons (for example) directly into a container in a constant stream. Not squeezing/releasing, squeezing/releasing, the pump in short bursts. If you do that a dozen times to try and fill up the fuel neck, those cummulative small errors may add up to 1/2 gallon of gas you're paying for but not getting. Anyway, I can't find the website where I read this but it passes my common sense test and can account for (somewhat) the reports of folks putting 13+ gal of gas into a Fit.

So if you're trying to fill up the Fit by multiple top-off squeezes, remember that you might not be getting as much extra gas into the tank as you think.

BTW my last fillup was 32.7 in mixed highway/suburb driving in freezing temps with my auto sport Fit.

richard613

I gassed-up my Fit for the first time the other day. I noticed that once the pump shuts off, you can wait a few seconds then pump .15 gallons of fuel. Wait, pump, lather, rinse, repeat. I finally chickened-out after getting another 1.5 gallons into the car after initial shutoff. I don't know how much further I could've went and I wasn't sure how the evaporative emissions system would react.

The people who claim to stuff 12+ gallons into their fit -- I believe them!

bobw3

The point of my email is that you might not really be getting 0.15 gal for every pump, click, wait, pump because pumps may not be accurately reading these short bursts. You may have only added another 1/2 gal, not 1.5gal. I guess you could try the pump-click-wait-pump method filling up a gas can to test for accuracy. It's not a big deal either way I guess.

paul_s

Pete, How are you arriving at 13.4 gals. My 2008 owner manual says 10.8 US gal. What did I miss?

Thanks

bobw3

The pipe that run between the fuel door and the tank is pretty long, so that's where the extra gallons come from. I suppose what you could do is fill up to the first click and then fill up a five gallon tank of gas and then pour it from the 5 gal tank into the Fit and see how much more you can put in.

paul_s

So the pipe holds 2.6 US Gals wow that's amazing :confuse: :confuse:

bobw3

maybe/maybe not exactly. As I was saying in a previous post, all of the click and autostop of the pump may not accurately indicate how much is put in over a dozen squeeze-pump-auto-stop, squeeze-pump-auto-stop, etc..., so it may be less.

mustangxr

OK, I should clarify how I get all that fuel in. First of all, I often run my tank down past the refuel light coming on. I have found that when the gauge hits the empty mark, the car will still go another 100 kilometers before it dies. I know that because I tried it. That equals 62 miles BTW. OK, so that explains one thing, that my tank is close to empty when I refuel.

When I refuel to top it off, I do not cycle the pump on and off. Rather, I feather the valve so that the fuel runs out slowly in a clear stream, not foaming and bubbling like a mountain brook. This ensures more accuracy from the meter, and avoids cycling the valve. It takes about two minutes to get the last 10 liters in. About the same amount of time as filling a 10 liter plastic gas tank if you include unscrewing the cap and screwing the cap back on. I can see and hear the fuel tank vent line operating in the fuel as it percolates down the fuel filler tubing during the last 10 liter fill. With some gas pumps, it is difficult to feather the valve so that it will go to a low fuel flow. Sometimes, I just give up and take what I can get.

A fuel flow meter is quite capable of metering fuel at slow velocities BTW, on a 42 gallon aircraft tank it is not uncommon to be within a quart of accuracy from a full tank to dead empty. This fuel is metered from idle to full throttle and all the RPMs in between so it is possible. In other words, the fuel flow meter is totalized by the computer and the actual fuel burn and the calculated burn by the totalizer is within a quart on a 42 gallon tank. You know the tank is empty when the engines stops running!

An automotive gas pump is just a fuel flow meter with a fuel totalizer hooked up to it. (Along with a price gauge too!!) The difference being that it is regulated by government inspections and the fuel density is averaged out to measure as if it was pumped at 15 degrees C, or 59 degrees F.

Anyway, what I have found is, that I can usually put another 10 liters into the tank after the auto shutoff feature activates on the nozzle. Which works out to 2.5 US Gallons!!

My Fit does not seem to run any differently when it is topped off, than when just filled to the auto-shutoff. As to longterm damage or ill effects, I have been topping off as described for 8 months now so.....

Cheers, Pete

dgecho1

never ran the fuel tak dry...but I always found it good safely for 20-30 miles past the 'e' mark as you said...it is also easy to 'feather' more gas into the long neck....450-515 mile range at 55 mph, warm, level roads in FL......

paul_s

Pete, You should stop filling it after the pump auto click off. My friend is a Master Honda mech working at Honda and said that's bad news for the charcoal canister and that part of the environmental stuff. It's not worth it man. I'd bet you have already saturated the charcoal in it..........

I reached 350 miles today and filled mine up for the 1st time. 70% freeway at 65 no A/C manual 5 speed Sport. 9.144 gal or 38mpg on tank #1 for me. I think the dealer over filled it so on the way home at 172.5 miles (90% 65 mph freeway no A/C windows cracked 5", it was HOT today) it took 4.59 gal 37.4mpg.

My owner manual says 10.8 gal fuel tank
after the E light comes on they say 1.7 of the 10.8 is reserve.
9.10 to e light

I think I proved that today.
Drove 5 more miles past E light and at the pump one more auto pump cut off past 1st. That was 9.144
I love it when stuff adds up.

I'm very pleased.

I'll have my scanner gauge this week and will be able to find out what it like best. I plan to test a number of things

nippononly

Well, steady highway driving at 60 mph does violate the recommended break-in, but the only thing it affects is how quickly and how well the rings seat in the pistons. Driving the first 400 miles on cruise at 60 mph will impact the NEXT owner, not the one posting here...

kuhnrlpa

I bought my 2008 Fit Sport AT in mid November 2007 after my 2002 Civic EX manual AT was totalled in an accident. I was hoping to get at least the same mpg, low 30s, that I was getting in that car. I have an 18 mile mixed suburban/rural commute. I do have quite a few turns and my wife says I am a very "active" driver. She can't drive a MT so we got the AT.

I did think that it would get better than 24 mpg at 2400 miles. I expected some break in time but I also miss the extra horsepower at lower speeds that the Civic got for that higher mpg. I admit that I have left rear defrost on a lot and use the blower defrost when necessary while driving. I almost always have the heat on at least halfway since I live in PA and it winter. I am hoping the mileage improves as the weather warms and I can use the environmental accessories less.

Could someone tell me how they have done with different gas combinations. We have some stations that say 10% ethanol and some that say nothing about how much ethanol they are using. How much do you think this is causing the reduced mpg?

Because I have the Sport I have been upshifting frequently trying to get the RPMs down. Has anyone found this to help their mileage? I just started this recently to see if the mileage would improve. I have tried driving it in standard but it is very difficult to use the paddle shifters, turn, and accelerate all at the same time. It was easier when the stick was on the floor. The AT does seem to be doing a pretty good job getting it to the highest appropriate gear with some notable exceptions. That is, after a period of acceleration it will ride 4th gear unless you decelerate a little and then it goes to 5th. You can tell this more by RPM than by feel. I have been upshifting earlier when I don't need to accelerate any more.

I have not yet had it to the dealer but will get the recall fix for the airbag and ask them about the mpg. Anything else I should be focusing on for this visit?

Other than the mpg we are really enjoying the Fit. It is much easier to get our twin 4 yr olds in and out of the back seat than the Civic and the different seating configurations make it much more versatile.

As to the thread on sound, I do have to say that the Fit is quieter and more comfortable at 65 mph than my 02 Civic. I did not test the MT but the RPM in overdrive is fairly low and the car in general is fairly quiet for a hatchback.

limpin

While doing my research before buying a Fit, it occurred to me that the fuel efficiency of the Automatic transmission with the paddle shifters is rated 1 MPG lower than that of not only the manual transmission, but also the automatic without the user-selectable gears. The difference is in the highway MPG rating. Check out EPA's Fit stats and this site, which explains the difference in transmission.

EPA Rating of three different transmissions:

Manual 5-spd: 28 city / 34 highway

Automatic 5-spd: 27 city / 34 highway

Automatic (S5): 27 city / 33 highway

Granted, it's not much of a difference, but the efficiency sticklers in this thread might be able to shed some light as to why. In the thread history, there is a lot of speculation that the paddles make for better mileage. Could this be the end-all answer that they're actually worse?

kipk

Could be the particular car they tested. Or it could be there is a difference in gearing for the trannies with the paddle shifters. As the Paddles are in the "Sport" additions, there may be lower gearing for more performance.

You could ask the service manager at a Honda dealer for the statistics or drive each yourself. See what RPM each is turning at 60mph in OD.

Kip