Honda Fit Real World MPG

northernfit

Over inflating tires can be very dangerous...it affects handling and tire integrity. I personally would not over inflate my tires...JMHO

bprenderson

Northern,

Would you inflate them to the maximum lbs.shown on the tires?

Regards,
Buster

cwalti

No, i would go a bit over mid range.

My tire says 44 # max and the car mfg specs 32lbs, I will go to 38 #.

northernfit

I follow the advice of Consumer Reports, and others, and they say to follow the manufacturers recommendations, not what the tire is rated for.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/tires-auto-parts/auto-parts/carcare-myth- s-vs-reality-1205/overview/index.htm?resultPageIndex=3&resultIndex=24&searchTerm- =tire%20pressure

bprenderson

Northern,

Thanks. Bubba keeps her Fit tires at 38 lbs.

Regards,
Buster

nascartrash

I run mine at about 35 psi
mileage getting better with age, I'm at 31k miles
sport auto and 33 mpg avg.

fitguy66

I have a 2008 Honda Fit Sport automatic transmission and after 19 complete fill ups, I am averaging 30 mpg with mostly city driving.

I have 6600 miles on my car that was purchased in January 2008.

kipk

>"I follow the advice of Consumer Reports, and others, and they say to follow the manufacturers recommendations, not what the tire is rated for."

northernfit,
That is a handy link! And it reinforces what many have said on the forum.
Proper tire pressure is a balance of tire specs, weight of vehicle, safety and ride. Thanks

Kip

northernfit

Always happy to share what I've learned from others.

I had been running the tires in my 3/4 ton truck at a lower pressure than recommended to get better traction in the winter. I posed a question to the folks at Consumer Reports and they said told me not to since the vehicle had been tested with 60 psi in the front and 80 psi in the rear. Definitely a conservative approach, but I like to be conservative with my vehicles (and not much else )

shneor

Yes, really. The tachometer hardly increases between 80 and 95.

ak_fit

09 Fit Sport Auto. 1st trip today, about 180 miles. MPG computer shows 44.6 mpg. I did not top the tank off to check this number with real math. Trip was about 80% highway at 50-60 mph, the rest city.

brianflys

'09 Fit Sport AT purchased today. 7 miles on it at delivery. 230 miles now after fillup and reset trip/mpg. Showing average 37 mpg now (slowly climbing all day). About 70% California freeway driving around 70 mph, A/C on the whole time. So am I looking at maybe 45 mpg after the engine break-in? That would be very cool to get, and without a hybrid. :shades:

thegraduate

Yes, really. The tachometer hardly increases between 80 and 95.

That doesn't mean the amount of fuel used hardly increases. The extra aero drag created as speeds go up increases in an exponential way.

Also...

RPMs should increase by more than 500 for every 15 MPH in a fit, in fifth gear. That is more than "hardly" to me.

kipk

Good Post!

I agree, The wind drag would be considerable at the speeds reported. I suspect the "fill up" after that particular trip was one of those "flukes" we all experience from time to time. :confuse:

shneor,

I drive our Pilot and am very particular how I refuel. Run the pump on the lowest "auto" setting. Go 1 click after the initial shut off. Try to use the same pump, and in the cool of the morning. With my typical local driving, the mileage is most always 17-19 MPG. However it has ranged from 14 to 21 with identical driving patterns and conditions. ? ? ?

Fuel tanks contain an air pocket, as the filler tube generally goes into the side of the tank. It is high, but still in the side. With our two cars, when the right front wheel is lower than the rest of the car it will hold more fuel. Apparently the tilt of the car allows more air to escape from the tank during the fill up, which allows more gas to go in.

Kip

polymorpha

Over the first five tanks of gas in our new Fit, the average mileage is 39.4 mpg, calculated as total mile divided by total gallons. The car is a manual and we usually drive without the AC. Driving is about 70% suburban and country driving, 20% city and 10% highway. No complaints.

fgeney

Just visited automobiles.honda.com and the site lists the 2009 manual as having worse mileage than the automatic. Click here for specs This was surprising; I guess the computer that determines auto shifts gives more optimal shifts than the manual can allow, despite the added weight of an auto transmission.

But what was additionally perplexing was that the Fit Sport gets 1-2 mpg worse both city/hwy mileage than the Fit base, even with the same automatic transmission. :confuse:

Is the Fit Sport that much heavier? Or is it the paddleshifters? There was no mileage difference listed between the Fit base and Fit Sport with the first generation.

thegraduate

Just visited automobiles.honda.com and the site lists the 2009 manual as having worse mileage than the automatic. Click here for specs This was surprising; I guess the computer that determines auto shifts gives more optimal shifts than the manual can allow, despite the added weight of an auto transmission.

It amounts to the fact that the automatic has taller gearing than the manual (allowing the engine to run at a lower RPM at higher speeds). They gear the manual shorter to prevent the driver from having to manually downshift too much all the time on the highway (more usable power is available the higher the RPMs are, so downshiting is required less).

northernfit

50% highway, 50% back roads at 45 mph (no stopping); conservative on acceleration; top speed 65 mph.

I'd sacrifice available performance for fuel economy!

igloomaster

i've owned my new '08 base Fit [manual tranny] for 6 weeks.
i've put 3100 miles on it.

most of the time i average 33.5 mpg.
the highest i can remember having = 37mpg.

i drive carefully, no rip-roaring starts off of the line.
though at times on the hwy i do 80mph steadily. i never go faster than 80.

i'd love to get 45mph!

fgeney

It amounts to the fact that the automatic has taller gearing than the manual (allowing the engine to run at a lower RPM at higher speeds). They gear the manual shorter to prevent the driver from having to manually downshift too much all the time on the highway (more usable power is available the higher the RPMs are, so downshiting is required less).

Ah, of course. That makes sense. I would also guess, then, that the '09 automatic would be significantly less peppy than the manual? anyone have acceleration numbers? the slightly worse mileage might be worthwhile if the manual is notably quicker.

I'm surprised that Honda didn't offer a six speed manual, but I would venture that it's in the works for later years, since competitor Nissan Versa has one.

Anyway, I'm still wondering why the Sport is 1-2 mpg worse in mileage than the base Fit. There is a weight difference, but not huge. I wonder what items on the Sport add the most weight? Could there be anything besides weight that makes the Sport get worse mileage, with the same transmission?

kipk

Automatics have a "slipping" torque convertor which helps to allow the engine to build more RPM (and Power) at a given speed in the lower gears. Therefore acceleration of the AT and MT are similar. With the MT still having a slight advantage. Auto trannies use engine power just to operate.

A skilled driver can get better mileage with the MT in city or local driving. However most drivers are not as "skilled" as they think and the AT shifting logic may win out.

On the road the torque convertor locks up and doesn't slip any longer. Road RPM at a given speed will be lower with the AT due to the higher overall gearing.

Another gear would help both the AT and the MT.

Kip

bobw3

Would the larger tires of the Sport reduce MPG over the non-sport version?

ak_fit

2009 Sport Auto.
1st fill 192 miles, 4.98g = 38.55mpg, computer said 43.2.
2nd fill 244 miles, 7.38g = 33mpg. Computer said 38.1.
I am a pretty conservative driver used to milking vehicles for best mpg. This represents about 50% highway vs city.
This is a bit perplexing. Why is my math nearly 5mpg worse than the computer shows? The first fill was just a top off as I couldn't stand the mpg curiosity and I wanted to start with a tank I filled since I couldn't be sure how full the dealer filled. I just fill until the pump clicks off.
I bought the auto based on the better mpg rating. I'm not sure this is valid at this point. I did not realize the Sport was rated worse than the Base. I probably would have bought a base if I would have known this.

kipk

If the overall diameter of the tires is the same (taller wheels lower tires) the mileage should be about the same.

If the final drive is the same, and the overall diameter of the Sport tires is more than the Base, there is more mass to get into motion and could hurt "City". However on the road the Sport would be turning fewer RPM at a given speed, as the tires are traveling a little farther with each revolution.

Here is an example. On an old Chevy van that we used for camper towing at 2500 RPM we were moving 58 mph. However, with any 10 mile stretch of X-way mile markers, the odometer would show we had been 10.7 miles.

Next time we got tires I went with a much larger set as we were not camping any longer. The tach still showed 2500 at 58 mph. Which it should. But the odometer now shows we traveled 9.9 miles.

If the readings with the smaller tires had of been accurate (10 miles), then changing to the larger tires would have then shown we had only been 9.2 miles., instead of the 10 we actually traveled. So instead of getting the 16 mpg, the odometer reading divided by gallons would have been more like 14.6.

So did Honda re calibrate for any differences in overall tire size? Only measuring with mileage markers or using a GPS for actual miles driven, when compared to the odometer, would tell for sure.

Putting larger diameter tires on any car without re calibrating the odometer, will show a drop in MPG even though it may not have actually changed. The ground effects and spoiler on the Fit Sport may also cause some additional drag. :sick:

Kip

thegraduate

Ah, of course. That makes sense. I would also guess, then, that the '09 automatic would be significantly less peppy than the manual? anyone have acceleration numbers?

The previous Fit Sport looked like this, as tested by Motor Trend magazine:

5AT - 11.4s to 60 MPH
5MT - 8.7s to 60 MPH

A large difference, but you must account for launch technique, as well. The manual can have the clutch dropped at a high RPM to get some wheelspin, which helps times for acceleration versus an automatic.

ak_fit

I was told by a Honda salesman that the overall diameter of the 2 models is equal. The Sport has bigger wheels but small diameter tires. 185 / 55 R16 83H Sport vs 175 / 65 R15 84S Base

fitisgo

Sept 14-15 we drove our 08 Fit Sport w/auto trans (which had only 2000 miles on it when we started) from Omaha, NE to Minneapolis, MN, and back. Total miles was about 800 (90% Interstate driving) and overall fuel economy was 39.5 MPG. 2 adults w/total weight of 300 lbs, 50 lbs luggage, windows up, A/C on about 2/3 of the time, cruise control on, average speed around 70 MPH, mixture of rolling hills and flatland. One segment of 263 miles from Omaha to Mason City, IA (via Interstates 80 east and 35 north) we got 45.2 MPG, driving at 63-65 MPH with cruise on and no A/C. Conservative driving throughout the trip, no fast/hard acceleration on the entrance ramps and no hard braking/stops.

Conclusion we came to is that you can exceed the EPA mileage estimates if you are able to control a combination of a number of factors that can increase mileage. We did not try any of the strange "hypermiler" techniques we've been reading about, such as not braking through curves (i.e., too fast for them) or coasting down hills in neutral or even shutting off the engine down hills or when stopped, or "drafting on the tail of semitruck trailers (highly dangerous).

Yes, there are bigger/heavier cars that can get better fuel economy than the Fit, but how many of them are more fun to drive? And how many of them can you buy new for $16-18K? For the "bang for you buck" factor, the Fit gets pretty high marks in my book.

kipk

>"A large difference, but you must account for launch technique, as well. The manual can have the clutch dropped at a high RPM to get some wheel spin, which helps times for acceleration versus an automatic"

Exactly !

Also a considerable time can be dropped from the AT 0-60 time by holding the left foot on the brake and giving enough throttle to "Pump up" the torque converter to a point of one of the front wheels actually turning slightly.

This would enable the car to "leave" with more RPM, thus more horse power.

Doubt if many or any of the car rags do that!

Kip

thegraduate

Also a considerable time can be dropped from the AT 0-60 time by holding the left foot on the brake and giving enough throttle to "Pump up" the torque converter to a point of one of the front wheels actually turning slightly.

This would enable the car to "leave" with more RPM, thus more horse power.

Doubt if many or any of the car rags do that!

Actually, I believe I've read that they do! Many rags (such as MotorTrend) use whatever means to get the fastest time possible, and make no bones about it.

Consumer reports does not, however. They simply put foot to the floor. Their numbers are probably a good judgment for 99% of the people out there, since that's how most people drive.

dawsonmp

But those bigger/heavier cars can't be driven pedal to the metal and get better mileage than the Fit. I drive 80% H/W and 20% City on my 38 mile commute. I average 36 mpg with my '07 Sport M/T. Last fill-up was 38.0 mpg. For some reason I feel it's my duty to show others that these cars are FUN so I almost always get up to speed floored (no tire spin, though it can spin all the way through 1st and chirp 2nd). Then again, I'm mostly highway and I do govern myself to 70 mph cruise speed. I found that mileage drops off considerably above that. BTW, my Fit has over 50K miles now and I'll be shopping for tires soon and my rotors will need turning. I've worn my clutch pedal pad out and my new one is in at the dealer. That $5 part plus floor mats, cargo cover, and exhaust tip are all I've spent on the car (other than gas, oil and filter changes, tire rotation, and 1 air filter). I paid MSRP of $15,720 + $300 "processing fee", tax and tags. Dealer wouldn't even throw in floor mats and this was in May '06 before most people knew the car existed. Also - I sat in the '09 at the dealer. Seems they addressed some prior shortcomings but would really like to compare the ride. Then again, the Sport M/T is $1K more than mine and they have a $750 "adjusted value" sticker next to the regular window sticker. I think I'm OK with my '07.

thegraduate

But those bigger/heavier cars can't be driven pedal to the metal and get better mileage than the Fit.

Because those cars tend be faster than the Fit without having to drive foot-to-the-floor.

I have driven both a 2008 and the new 2009 Fit. They make my 130hp Accord feel fast, but they are neat cars that are fun to drive; it is just that forward progress isn't the reason they're fast. Go-Carts are fun but don't go fast.

dawsonmp

I wish the Fit had a sixth gear, even if was locked out until above 70 mph. The Sport model mileage is less than the base model because of the "aero pkg" which isn't really aero, it's just "looks cool" aerodynamic. Spoilers and ground effects don't help mpg and the Sport is also a bit heavier as it has more amenities. The tires are also 20 mm wider and flatter (55's instead of 65's) on the '07 and '08 which increases rolling resistance.

dawsonmp

Fast is subjective until it's measured. Tell me what available, under $20K, car is faster in a 1/4 mile magazine published test that is capable of getting better average fuel economy than the Fit? That would be faster than 16.7 seconds @ 81mph with 38 mpg economy (Car & Driver May '06)?

I'll tell you some that can't hang - Caliber SE, Accent GLS, Kia Rio 5, Versa, Suzuki Reno, and Yaris.

dawsonmp

Your old Accord may FEEL fast but here it is:

2888 lbs./130 HP Accord = 22.22 lbs./HP (Edmunds data)

2432 lbs./109 HP Fit = 22.31 lbs/HP

Pretty even. Yea my old Accord LX Coupe Automatic felt pretty fast until I got beat by a 4.0L Ford Ranger.

As far as fast goes, I used to think 10 second cars were fast until I saw 6 second ones (at the track, of course). Then the 10 second ones looked like traffic going by on the highway. Subjective.

thegraduate

You ignored the torque numbers though. My Accord has 139 lb-ft (20.77lbs per lb-ft). The old Fit you refernece has 105 lb-ft (23.16lbs per lb-ft).

Around town, my Accord feels much peppier because of the available torque. To be fair, I know my Accord isn't fast. On an open road with a 65 MPH limit and a red light I actually did a standing start timed 0-60 run; it did it in 9.9 seconds (about 1.5s faster than the old Fit). Not a big deal since neither car is going to be raced.

And before you ask; no, I'm not a race-car type driver. I'm usually right at 5 MPH over the limit, and keep it under 3k RPM in town. That was a rare instance for me! .

Anyway, I've taken us far enough off-topic, and I apologize! :shades:

TheGrad

bamacar

The test you referenced is about the only one with those results. In about all other published tests, the Toyota Yaris is faster and has better fuel economy than the Fit.

Interior quality, flexibility, and handling are clearly in the Fit's favor though. If acceleration and economy are the only factors then Yaris clearly beats the Fit at least with the 2007-08 models. See the Motor Trend comparison of the 07 Fit, Yaris, and Versa for just one example.

I haven't seen a direct comparison of 0-60 and quarter miles times between the 08 and 09 Fit.

xcentrick

fitman548, "Honda Fit Noise - wind, rattles" #50, 29 Dec 2006 9:44 am#49

Then go to msg #53.

g35john

For what its worth, the vesa gets 33-35 MPG mixed driving and is larger and more comfertable than fit/Yaris (For me anyway 6'-3" 260lbs). And from what I can tell its just as flexable with its interior layouts other than its rear seats not folding flat. (really no big deal).

kipk

That rear seat sticking up in the air across the cargo area (even when folded) is a big deal for folks that might want to slide in something that needs to sit flat, such as a dog crate, Bags of feed, and so forth.

Versa does have more room for rear seat passengers, but definitely not as versitale as some others. Mileage for the Versa, according to those reporting on
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ , is 25.6-30.7 average combined for AT. The Fit is 29.9-31.9 mpg average combined for AT. Not enough difference to get excited about, but still a difference.

For car poolers, the Versa might be a better choice. For utility it is not.

Kip

bobw3

I wonder about the overall long-term reliability of the Versa as compared to the Fit?

kipk

Nissan seems to build a good vehicle. Our 95 Maxima was trouble free, but that was only for 75K miles. Traded it for the 03 CR-V for more utility. A friend has a late 90s Maxima with a ton of miles, and it seems to be pretty much trouble free also.

Actually had more recalls and minor problems with each of our 2 Hondas than with the Maxima. :confuse:

Kip

thegraduate

Considering neither has been out here in America, long-tem, its hard to say from my standpoint. I think we all have a friend with a gozillion miles on something, don't we? :shades: My best friend has 196k miles on his '97 Maxima GXE. I have 184k on my '96 Accord LX. We are on original transmissions, but have both had some repairs (me - radiator, brake master cylinder, cooling fan motor; him - alternator, and now his car is taking a good 5 seconds of cranking to start). For this many miles, though, nobody is complaining.

These two car companies have changed a lot in ten years, so I don't know that this means anything.

pmeyers

Took delivery on a 2009 Fit Sport Manual. In my first fuel economy run, the mpg meter displayed 48.9 mpg for roughly 50 miles, but, using tried-and-true fill-up to the top, write down the fuel consumption divide into the trip miles, I got 36.9. One run of over 150 miles registered 42.2 mpg but actually delivered about 28. I proceeded to verify the accuracy of the odometer (NO discernible error in 10 miles of surveyed freeway mileage). In a final trial, over 50 miles the meter read 50.2mpg but, in fact delivered 37.9.

I took these facts to my dealer, booked an appointment with the service department and was rewarded with blank stares. Of course, the service guys said that there was no discernible problem and that, somehow, this anomaly was due to the car not being "broken in," and would improve or go away after 1500 miles. Also, they said that measuring fuel mileage was not an exact science and that my expectations were too high for the meters' accuracy.

As an engineer, I am baffled as to how an mpg meter can possibly profit from learning my driving habits over 1500 miles. If it doesn't actually measure fuel consumption, what does it measure and what is the correlation? If it does measure fuel consumption, then why would its accuracy improve over time? Even as a rough estimate, a meter that exhibits 25% or more of error either has a design flaw or is broken (mis-adjusted). I called Honda Customer Care, but, though they were unable to tell me how the meter worked or why it might "get better" after 1500 miles, they stuck to the party line about the mysterious improving meter.

There is no mention of a break-in accuracy period for the mpg meter in any of the manuals. They couldn't find anything in any of their manuals either.

Anyone else experience a hugely optimistic meter in their 2009? You can bet your booties that they would be all over this problem if their meter was 25% pessimistic!

ak_fit

09 Fit Sport Auto
1st fill 192 miles, 4.98g = 38.55mpg, Computer said 43.2. 4.65 discrepancy
2nd fill 244 miles, 7.38g = 33mpg. Computer said 38.1. 5.1 discrepancy
3rd fill 308 miles, 8.86g = 34.8mpg. Computer said 37.4 2.6 discrepancy

I too am perplexed by the computer discrepency but I'm not seeing 10mgp difference. I wonder if the fact the you're filling after on 50 miles has some impact on this. My wife, who doesn't fret about these things as much, say's the computer will get better over time. I can't understand why it would change but that doesn't mean in won't. My previous vehicle-a Dodge- computer was within 1-2mpg. 5-10 or more seems like a lot, no matter how it measures.

bobw3

Regardless of stories from friends, some car magazines I've read give the Fit top marks for quality/reliability but only so-so for the Versa.

BTW...my last manually calculated MPG for my '07 Sport Auto was 36.2mpg mosly highway with suburb driving. I've found (like most cars) that keeping the speed 65mph or less on the highway as compared to driving between 65-70 mph improves my MPG by 2-3mpg in my mixed highway/suburb driving.

kalvord

2009 Honda Fit Sport with VSA/NAV in Wisconsin. Just finished off my first tank of gas and at the nine gallon mark (when the fuel light went on) I averaged 40.8 miles per gallon. No driving in inclement weather thus far. Mostly highway and I have not taken it above 67mph on the freeway. :shades:

kalvord

luvindia

I avg about 33-34.5 in mix driving and 39.5-41.5 on the highway driving. The MPG meter calculates highest MPG that is 80 MPG when you are moving but the not pressing the gas pedal (such as downhill or in between the highway rolls) this may result in the higher MPG numbers on your panel but that is just a ballpark figure. I always calculate manually when I wish to know. My panel shows 42.5 to 43.5 but actually its about 39 or so... which is not bad at all. Loving it...

fithopeful

I hope that I am not repeating an old post (I didn't find anything on this after a brief search). I have a 2009 Honda Fit Sport (automatic). The average mpg read-out on it this last cycle read around 43mpg but when I calculated it myself based on the miles driven and the gas used it seemed closer to 38mpg. Has anyone else experienced anything like this? Perhaps there is something I am not taking into consideration when I do my own calculations but I had my husband check it as well and he got the same thing.

Thanks!

jdfury

I'm glad to see I'm not the only 09 fit owner with a warm and fuzzy fuel economy meter. I'm sitting at around 850 miles right now, and am averaging 33.4 (mix) according to good ol' math (manual tran). The meter is telling me 38.4. It should be noted that I coast whenever I can and don't drive like a teenager anymore (so far, I've found the best feature of this car to be the fluctuating bar that let's you know your fuel economy based on the 0-to-80 scale--it's really turned me into a less aggressive driver.

I guess we'll have to see if this reconciles itself in 650 miles when I hit the magic 1,500 mark. It's funny, if the meter didn't exist, I'd be happy pulling 33 in mixed conditions... Now I just feel like I'm getting jipped.