Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Yes, I'm not going to cry over 27mpg while the car has less than 600 miles on it.
But I'm hoping to break over 30mpg just in town. Figure that my 2008 Civic Si was getting 28-31 combined and I figure the Fit should be able to do as well. We have to drive easy here due to all the cops monitoring the roads we live on. Lots of hills and sharp corners. A lot of fun except for the cops that are checking your speed.
We had a small bit on snow maybe 2 inches and I saw a Subaru Outback twisted off the road. All seasons don't cut it on these roads. The Fit had no problem being driven normally. But 4-5 inches of unplowed snow on those hills will require snow tires.
My M3 2.0 liter engine sedan AT (no cruise control) gives me 25 mpg's combined and my M5 2.3 liter engine mini van (cruise control) gives me 24.5 mpg combined. I use to own a fit and I trade it in in for more power, I found that the rpm's are the tale of the story. Both Mazda's I own hit 65 mph at 2500 rpm's which is the perfect speed for highway, I drive normal in city. The problem with the 2008 fit is once you go over 50 mph your mpg's go down because your rpm's are higher. The new 2009 is doing better due to 9 more horse power, at 65mph the rpm is 2500.
But don't be concerned about it so much, gas prices are down and hopefully will stay there.
More important than fuel economy is the "fun-to-drive factor," and the Fit rates very high on that scale. Go forth, drive your Fits, and enjoy them while you can (because in a few years we'll all be driving new types of vehicles that won't have internal combustion engines).
I think it's hard to say. Let's see what a few hundred more miles will do. But we have a LOT of hills in this area and it downshifts 2 gears a lot of time to get up the hills.
I think I can get it better, but my Civic Si got 28-30mpg combined and easily 28 just in town. But that was a 6spd manual.
I'm hoping for 30mpg combined out of the Fit. Time will tell tho. It's still on it's second tank of gas.
Yeah....Slow down!
The Fit wasn't designed to be an open road speedster. It is more of a commute and "scoot around" vehicle. Although it does quite well at posted speed limits. Do yourself a favor and read several pages of this forum, and you will learn how speed kills mileage.
Those that go fast have to buy the gas!
Kip
It's 80 for half the commute, 72 for the other half. Get to ~190 miles on the half tank line. refill around 330 miles, when the light comes on, about 9.4 gallons on fill up. Consistently since purchase. I've never ever gotten below 33 MPG in any scenario (stop and go, lon climb up north, aggresive driving).
I think there's some turth to the good batch/bad batch.
This from Birmingham AL to Slidell LA, all Interstate except for about 30 miles on rolling hill side road (US 11 in MS). Speed varied between 65 and 80, 50-75% of time at 70 with cruise. No A/C.
This is a *new* car (a Christmas present that Santa will bring from its hiding place across town, tomorrow). Car was delivered with a 32 miles and a "full" tank. I don't know if the dealer actually topped it before handing it over. If the full tank started at 0 miles, then mileage would be 37.6.
I will post again as I accumulate mileage.
I wouldn't be so dismissive, for a car with such low mileage. My mileage in city was about 27 also, but I saw gradual improvement all the way to 10,000 miles. It's now about 30. There are so many factors, as you say, that there's no way you can be so sure.
I trust the odometer more than the fuel flow meter. (Is the guage really driven by a fuel flow meter?) The dash MPG guage has to display the computed MPG based on the distance traveled (the odometer - and anti-lock brakes - work off of digital messages from the wheel) and some proxy for the flow of fuel. I assume that there is a fuel flow meter, but a vacuum reading might be used instead.
How can I adjust the calculation of MPG to be closer to reality?
1) There is no way to adjust the meter
2) If the meter doesn't generate a fault on the system bus, it's working correctly, regardless of the reading. They will not try to replace the meter under warranty.
3) You are being too picky if you expect an accurate MPG meter (less than 20% error).
4) They have no plans to fix this issue in this revision of the Fit.
This is likely the last Honda I will buy. I have owned many Audis in the last 20 years, and my first experience with Honda is a stonewall on this issue. At least Audi will attempt to fix the problem. All of their MPG gauges are adjustable by a technician.
My car: 2009 Sport MT sans navigation.
I have had a couple of issues with our Pilot that HONDA is uninterested in.
Main one being the towing wiring harness. We have been considering a super light "Egg" type travel trailer. About 1500# dry. It has electric brakes and requires a 7 pin electrical connection to the tow vehicle.
Our Honda installed $900 tow package provides a 4 pin trailer wiring connector that works fine for a trailer with no brakes or surge brakes. However I can't tow a trailer of any kind with electric brakes, as they require a 7 pin connector. The answer I get from Honda is basically, "That's the way it is". The Ridgelines have a 7 pin connector available, but there is no way, according to Honda, to adapt it to the Pilot.
To add to their poor planing and utter stupidity, the new '09 Pilots have an integrated trailer hitch, built right in. However there is absolutely no wiring to connect to a trailer. The wiring harness is $181 extra and the DEALERSHIP CAN'T TELL ME IF IT IS 7 PIN OR 4 PIN. OF COURSE THERE IS ALSO A CHARGE FOR THEM TO INSTALL IT. How stupid is that!
To solve your problem, you would do well to Purchase a "Scan Gauge ll". I got one a month ago. It provides lots and lots of information. It is adjustable by the owner.
It keeps track of the tank MPG, fuel used out of the tank, fuel left in tank, running time on the tank, running time left on the tank, instant mpg, current trip MPG that can be reset instantly, today's total mpg, yesterdays mpg, error codes, water temp, speed current, average, maximum, rpm current and average and max, and so forth. Background colors and brightness of the display, type of ready information on the display and a lot of stuff I haven't used yet.
My last two tanks showed the tank average to be within 1/10 mpg when I double checked with a calculator miles divided by gallons.
It plugs in under the dash in the same connector the mechanics use for diagnostics.
"Set Up" requires you to tell it the size of your engine, size of fuel tank and type of fuel ie, gas,diesel, hybrid. Fill the car with gas and press the "Fillup" button. Next time you fill up, it will say how much fuel it thinks you used, MPG and so forth.
If the actual fuel required to fill the tank was different, you enter that. It makes it's internal corrections. Next 2 tanks were dead on for me. I'm working on the 3rd tank now. You can also tell it the price per gallon of the gas and it will tell you the cost of each of the different trips mentioned above until the next fill up. Plus the cost of running that tank.
If you like the car, but are upset with the one item, the $160 instrument is a lot less expensive than trading. Besides being helpful it is fun to play with!
This is a $160 instrument that probably cost the dealers $100. It would be a great dealer option that actually works accurately. I read about them 2 years ago. Wish I had bought one then.
We are considering a Fit for our family. But the huge swings in reported mileage is discouraging. As are the options that don't work well, and the lack of options.
There have many reports concerning the inaccuracy of odometer, fuel tank gauge, and MPG gauge, that Honda is not much help with.
Kip
- Mileage seems to be little better when driving in Sport mode and using paddle shifters compared to Drive mode (less automatic downshifting).
- Use of cruise control OK on flat roads but hurts mileage on up/down grades.
Also note that average mileage has been constant over first 17,000 miles. No mileage increase post-break-in has been observed.
We get 28mpg combined. We live in a rural area with a few hills and almost no stop and go city driving except when we go to the supermarket on a weekend.
Bottom line is the Fit gets EPA and no better. Of course I expect it to go up 3-4mpg when we stop using winter blend gas.
I find claims of 40mpg in this car to be very suspect unless the car is driven downhill in neutral with a strong tail wind. My wife likes the car and it's easy for her to drive. For me, it's just ok. My 84 year old aunt has trouble getting into the back seat and complains about the door jamb being too high.
One thing I'll say is that the car is pretty sensitive to the driver. I generally get a few MPG better than my wife just because she's heavier on the gas pedal then I am.
I think if you browse other forums, you'll find similar MPG extremes on for any car. Plus it depends on what you're looking for. MPG was only one factor for buying the Fit. Interior roominess, driving characteristics, build quality and reliability were the main factors. The Fit has 21CuFt of cargo space behind the 2nd row, plus some usefull storage under the 2nd row, and a lot of storage with the 2nd row down. At 157" in length, it's easy to park. The steering is great. Quality has been stellar. We've found that for our family of 4, we can use the Fit over our big car for nearly all of our weekend trips. Even at 35mpg on the highway, it sure beats taking a minivan, SUV, or CUV only getting in the low 20s MPG at best. And resale value strong, so even if you find you don't like it, you'll be able to sell it for a good price.
The one that stands out most in my mind was the Chevy Aero at 18mpg city and 35mpg highway in their tests. And I believe the Fit was in the low 20's city and upper 30s highway.
We had driver + two passengers (about 450 lb, don't ask about weight distribution, please), luggage, toys, about 50 lb of bottled water.
Tires were at 38 PSI, up from the 32 recommended.
Terrain was rolling hills, almost entirely on cruise control.
Sporadic A/C use with defroster.
Mileage definitely depends on speed; 60-65 yields near 38 MPG, 70 MPH about 34.
Coasting: On a 2001 CIvic manual with a OBDII meter connected, I noticed that fuel flow seems to drop to near zero when decelerating with the engine engaged. (I have not tried this on the Fit yet). I theorize that if the throttle is at idle (no pedal), the ECU will reduce or shut off fuel flow as long as engine speed is over idle speed.
On both Hondas (Fit & Civic) I have stopped coasting with clutch disengaged, which requires the engine to idle under its own power, and I now keep the car in gear during deceleration. It is difficult to tell whether this makes a significant difference in consumption.
After the trip with the Fit, the left front tire developed a bubble in the sidewall. This wasn't covered by the OEM warranty, but fortunately I took out a road-hazard warranty when I bought the car. The warranty people would not cover a sidewall bubble unless there was damage to the inside of the tire. The tire technician helped me find a very small split near the bubble site.
The Fit Sport's tire size, 185-55-16, is not common (in fact, I think the Fit is the only car using it, so far). I had to drive for a day with the bubble while waiting for it to come in by special order.
The computer provides the current gas mileage (in the moment). Unless you maintain a given mileage reading over the entire range of a tankfull of gas, you will find that the actual mileage (calculated the old fashioned way) is about 3 mpg less than the computer reads when you stop for fill-up. This has been my experience with predominant highway driving in an 09 Fit Sport. In town driving my vary even more depending on how you drive.
Overall, I find the Fit gas mileage quite sensitive to the speeds maintained. At 80-85 mph on the highway I can consistently get 30-31 (real) mpg. Lower speeds 60-65 can produce 37-40 (real) mpg. In town is around 26-28 without trying too hard.
Low profile tires (for the Fit Sport, 55 series, meaning the tire is 55% as tall as it is wide) I suspect are more susceptible to damage from striking discontinuities in the road surface. The older Civic has same width (185) but are 65 series, and those tires soak up bumps with more compliance. The lower profile does give the Fit lightning-fast, go-kart like steering response. It is a true pleasure to drive.
We have studiously avoided the legions of potholes in post-Katrina New Orleans. I suspect the damage was done by a large unexpected gouge on I-65 N just south of Cincinnati. (Middle lane, left side).
BTW, my measured MPG for the first 4,000 miles or so has been roughly 36 mpg with 70% city/suburban, 30% freeway mileage.
And if the effort of going uphill was offsetted by coasting downhill, then you might want to ask a biker if it's easier to pedal 10 miles on flat ground or up and down hills...they'll tell you that it takes much less energy to go a given distance on flat ground than up and down hills. And likewise for a car it takes more energy to go up and down hills. It's the "objects in motion tend to stay in motion" theory, so once you have a vehicle at a certain speed, it doesn't take much energy to maintain that speed.
What you may want to try to test this is drive a couple of hundred miles on a flat highway. Once at a constant 55mph and the other doing your accelaration/coasting method and then manually calculate your MPG and report back.
I've seen it firsthand with other cars too--the best tank I ever had with my old Focus hatchback was 39 mpg driving for a whole day in the mountains in Colorado. Coasting downhill with it in 3rd or 4th, I could go for miles at a time without touching the gas pedal at all, and it definitely seemed to outweigh the extra gas used during short bursts of climbing.
Our "Scan Gauge" is in our Pilot. While using cruise control, on flat ground at 60 mpg, we get 28-30 mpg depending on the very slight variations in road, wind and so forth. . On a long steep uphill grade, the mileage may drop to 12 mpg and the transmission has found it's way back to 3rd gear. Going down the other side, maintaining the same speed, the mileage may show 9999 mpg, as the default. Indicating we are getting more than 100 mpg. Transmission may have stayed in 5th, or grade logic may have geared down to 4th.
In the case of these steep grades, common sense says that the gravity we fight going up, helps us when going down. If it was only 100 mpg going down, and 12 mpg up, the pencil average for the 2 would be 56 mpg. Which is much better than flat ground driving.
On rolling hills, the mpg may show 22 up and 54 going down. Pencil Average 38 mpg. Still better than flat ground. But not as good as the steep terrain.
These 2 examples indicate the best mileage occurs with the steepest grades.
All that looks good on the "Instant MPG" gauge and on paper. But switching back to the "Trip MPG" is a reality check. It doesn't reflect that great mileage.
I do not understand why ! :sick:
Fact is, that in real world, the best mileage is achieved with a steady foot, or cruise, on flat ground at lower speeds. (55-60 mph). Worse mileage with the steepest terrain. At the end of the trip/day, the SG and calculator agree with this.
It has to do with math and things way over my head.
Kip
"If it was only 100 mpg going down, and 12 mpg up, the pencil average for the 2 would be 56 mpg." You're calculating your MPG wrong.
If you drove 100 miles uphill at 12mpg that equals 8.3 gallons of gas used.
If you drove 100 miles downhill at 100mpg that equals 1 gal used.
So for the 200 miles driven you used 9.3 gal of gas and 200/9.3 = 21.5mpg average, not 56mpg average.
Or best case and you use zero gallons on the 100 miles of downhill, then for the 200 miles you used 8.3 gallons, or 24.1mpg average over the 200 miles
It's a common MPG calculation flaw. That if you drive 1/2 the miles at 20mpg and 1/2 the miles at 40mpg then your average MPG is 30...wrong because it's miles per gallon, not gallons per mile.
Now if you use on gallon of gas at 20mpg and then drive the next gallon of gas at 40mpg, then your average MPG will be 30mpg because for the 1 gal at 20mpg you'll have driven 20 miles and then the next gallon you'll have driven 40 miles, which equals 60 miles using 2 gal which equals 30mpg.
Just remember that MPG stands for Miles Per Gallons and not Gallons Per Mile.
Bottom line is that if you're only getting 12mpg on the uphills even if you shut the car off on the downhills you're still only achieving 24mpg average, which is much worse then a steady 55mph on flat terrain.
First law dictates that one many not create or destroy energy, only transfer it. Hill-climbing raises the car's potential energy that is converted back into kinetic energy upon descent.
Second law says these processes must incur some energy loss to the outside world. For a car, wind resistance, friction, noise, heat from brakes, cooling system, exhaust are among these irreversible losses. (Hybrids achieve better mileage by capturing and storing energy that would have been dissipated by braking or rolling losses).
A roller coaster illustrates the first law: speeds up going downhill as potential turns into kinetic energy (momentum), then slows again on climbing as kinetic energy is stored as potential.
In cars, the efficiency of conversion of fuel to energy varies with load. Generally, lower power and steady-state (i.e., no change in power) yields higher efficiency. An engine running faster faces higher losses from larger volumes of exhaust, shorter power stroke duration, gearing loss in lower gears, greater heat transfer from combustion products to coolant and exhaust, etc. This translates into lower efficiency.
It is possible but unlikely that an engine performs better at higher load than what is required for steady-state cruising. For that case, the power-then-coast method would improve mileage.
But in general, given that no net energy is gained or lost from the inclines, wind and rolling resistance do not vary significantly from flat, the lower efficiency of the typical power plant on inclines will translate into lower mileage on hills.